Related Posts
What is the lateral hire process like?
Mentor
Pro
Thursday Wordle
Wordle 474 2/6
⬛🟨⬛🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
How long it take for L1 round in Capgemini.
Community Builder
Bowl Leader
Conversation Starter
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
I don’t think academic performance should be a primary metric for hiring decisions - I graduated from a mid-ranked university with middle of the pack grades, something so mediocre that I couldn’t get into the management training program that I’d been offered a place in by the company I’d interned with… yet my career has massively outperformed my academic background. I’m not saying you should ignore it, but I don’t believe it should be a primary tiebreaker.
I would take into account cultural/team/attitude/personality fit. Your candidate with more hands on experience might come into the role with a sense that they already know what they’re doing, while your academic genius may see themselves as above those people who went to lesser universities and more inclined to work on their own - which of those is a fit for the role/organization?
My inclination is to take the proven performance.
Agree
I personally value experience more than education. I feel like the average person learns more in a month on the job than they do in an entire year of school. Applied knowledge, and all that.
Experience trumps education for me as well. Hands down.
Attitude, experience, and then education.
What value does the degree bring to the role? What value does the hands on experience bring to the role?
Centre you decision making on the role not the candidate.
OP is your situation an actual dilemma you faced or a hypothetical one? I ask as it rarely comes down to two candidates who are that equal.
It’s more of a hypothetical example to explore how people weigh experience versus education when making tough hiring calls. I know real-life cases are usually more nuanced, but thought it could spark some interesting perspectives.
Thanks for all the input.
This is exactly the kind of challenge we’re trying to tackle at candidate select. We’re building tools that help compare candidates more fairly, not just based on where they studied, but also things like how quickly they’ve progressed in their career.
Would something like that be useful in cases like this? Always curious to hear how others think about making these tough calls.
I’ll add on to what SM1 said, that rapid progression in a career isn’t always a good thing. It depends on why and what the individual accomplished and learned at each step along the way.
Realistically, there’s greater need for the super solid, consistent performers than there is for the shooting stars that climb fast and aim high. Businesses live and die longer term on the backs of employees who are simply rock solid in their work, not on the fireballs that shooting star types can create.
As someone who climbed fast (I moved from being a software engineer to a VP in less than 5 years), I freely acknowledge that I have gaps in my knowledge and experience that I probably would have filled had I climbed at a steadier, slower pace. I wouldn’t change my journey for me because it’s been incredible, but I’ve had the support of an amazing manager, mentors, coaches, and advocates along the way who have helped me deliberately target my weak areas to fill the gaps. Not every rapid climber will have had that support.