No Degree = No Future ?

[greasemonkey]

I dont have a degree, nor much formal education either. I've been self employed most my life, and do ok, just.

On the occasions I have worked as an employee, for a big company or corporation, most managers seem to have degrees, and there is no way I would employ any of the managers i have worked under.

I cannot for the life of me understand how such rank incompetence has ingrained itself into the lower level of management, but my guess is that worthless degrees are valued more highly than skill and experience when it comes to the interview. Either that or the higher management cannot tell when a potential employee is lying through his teeth.

The very fact that a manager will seek to hold down an employee through fear of being shown lacking, is the evidence in itself that the degree is worthless. j

Having said that, I know plenty with good degrees, who know what they are doing.

And if I had enough funds, would do a degree myself.

[noise]

Too many replies to read them all, so it may have already been covered. But, after many years as an engineering recruiter as an additional duty, I offer this suggestion/view point, anyway.

Everything I did read is true. Degrees do not guarantee excellence, drive, dedication, common sense, or even logical thinking. But, and this is a big but, all those qualities are available in people with college degrees. And those with degrees bring more to the job on day 1 than the person without a degree.

Your job as a hiring authority is to find the people that best fit the job description so, if your corporate culture is to use degreed people, why consider someone with out a degree? Seems like you are just taking an unnecessary risk.

You job is to take care of your company, not offer under-educated kids a chance. If you own the company and want to do that, have a student trainee program. That lets you hire the kids without causing resentment in your degreed employees (as long as you pay them less).

[StreetCowboy]

In my experience, a degree gives you background knowledge that is only occasionally relevant to your chosen career; and without a degree, you would be found lacking on those occasions.

Having said that, I would offer an interview to someone with three or four years of relevant experience but no degree; the decision to hire is not based on the qualifications, its based on the interview. The degree just gets you the interview. I recall inteviewing for a vaguely-defined post and interviewing a candidate whose background was quite different from our anticipated candidate, but in the end I thought our organisationw was not big enough to accomodate someone who lacked so much of our basic common skills, and we took on a local graduate, who has since proved to be one of that company's loyallest staff and a joy to work with.

Now, all that having been said, some of the people I have worked with of my own age or younger who were not degree qualified, I have been disappointed with, and found them less well-rounded and sophisticated engineers than their degree-qualified peers; this after twenty years of experience, by the way. But I don't think that having attended a university would have rectified that - it is the difference in character between someone that chooses to pursue a vocational qualification versus academic. And may be specific to people leaving school in the '80s... On the other hand, I recall one particularly able non-degree qualified engineer I worked with, whom we employed as a consultant, and though into his sixties was as bright as a button and eager to learn, as well as bringing tremendous experience. But quite simply, in the environment in which he had left high school, people made different choices in their career path than the same people would make had they turned eighteen thirty years later.

I didn't think I was any more of a risk taker when I had less experience than I have now. What my length of experience shows is that I am a moderately successful risk-taker...

Anyway, I wouldn't let the lack of a degree prevent me from employing the best candidate for a job, nor the colour of his skin. However, I would consider lack of the language skills necessary to work with his peers as a major drawback (a bit of speculation, there...); In the end, why would you go to the bother of employing an immigrant, with all the work permit hassles etc. when you can employ indigenous staff with the same or better qualifications? He would need to be clearly the better candidate...

SC

[Heng]

the most common of which is wanting to start their a professional life in their mid to late 20's, sometimes early 30's, instead of their early 20's. Not a huge issue if they had spent those years gaining some experience in the field they wanted to jump into, but in so many cases, it seems like they have just been messing around wasting time and are just now realizing that bills don't pay themselves and that they need a job.

heng, here, our kids dont start until after 22-23 to study: first finish high school, then one year volunteering (nto a requirement but highly 'suggested' volunteering in hospitals, renovating neighborhoods, various programs approved by the army so they get one year pre army allowing them to mature a bit,)then, 2-4 yrs army or more if officer, one year break like a gap year thing to work/travel, then studies. and the studies here are not the american dormitory party style studying. they scrunch four years into 2-3 yrs while holding down any kinds of jobs possible, and basically only those with money can study. all the other suckers either do short certificates or they do what most people in asia seem to do: look for 'protection' among their friends/associates to get a job that they might not fit, and then try to fit into it. and most of the time they succeed. but for a vast majority of jobs nowadays, that piece of paper means that yor salary gets brownie points so u will earn more then someone in the same job w/o that document. community style colleges are popping up all over the place as factories for degrees, mostly business/high tech stuff. no humanities or arts. somehow i always feel thailadn is like israel was when i first came here, the same attitudes, practices, changes, everything in a time lag situation, with a far eastern twist-- even face here is the same.

Yeah, I hear ya. I've met similar types, none from Israel yet though. I don't automatically assume than someone in their mid/late 20's - early 30's has been wasting their life away. That usually comes out when I hear their life story or we start parsing their references.

[noise]

Excellent input!

[Berkshire]

It seems that the people who argue the loudest that a college degree is worthless are generally people who don't have one. Regardless of whether you agree or not, the FACTS are that a person with a college degree (or higher) will earn more over a lifetime than someone without one. Check out this study (a tad dated, but still relevant today I would presume): http://www.boston.co...a_23000_a_year/

So you can keep bringing up Bill Gates et al, but the reality is that if your kids decide not to pursue university education, they will be at a disadvantage. That's the way it is pretty much everywhere in the world, Thailand included.

[fletchsmile]

i think that many of u are sort of missing an important cultural point. in thailand, those that hold degrees get status and employment and salary to match and are considered 'more important, better' then those that dont hold degrees REGARDLESS OF THEIR ACTUAL PROFESSIONAL ABILITIES'.

a westerner w/o a degree will put a lot of thai noses out of joint so that even if he/she fit the job, the teams/crew/co workers, and more importantly, those that would be subordinate to the person, wont cooperate , in so many subtle ways, that it might not be worth it.

bina

israel

Spot on. Whether people like it, agree with it, think it's right etc or not, these are unfortunately realities here

[fletchsmile]

I didn't answer the question.

I personally gave up finding 'employment' some time ago as not having a degree was just an insurmountable obstacle for me. My applications were not even being considered because of it. My experience and skills equated to exactly zero without that bit of paper. I had considered lying on my application to get my foot in the door but decided against it.

I had to lay the work experience I had to one side and start from scratch again in a completely new career path because of it. I am now self employed and things like degrees are never an issue, my skills and abilities are now allowed to speak for themselves.

Whilst I am sure there are employers out there who will give full time permanent employment to a farang without a degree, the odds are certainly not in our favour.

Kudos to you Moonrakers. The rules are often stacked against foreigners being employed in Thailand, particularly as highlighted without pieces of paper. The mistake many foreigners makes is to keep complaining about the rules. They ain't gonna change, so being practical about it like you have makes sense. Thailand isn't going to change quickly for foreigners, so the choices are adapt or move on. Or for some there's probably a 3rd which is bitch on Thai Visa

Good luck and hope it works out. While the chances of "moderate success" are perhaps higher for employees and those with degrees, at the extreme end of the scale for "great success" - that often comes from entrepreneurs who are driven by themselves, rather than working for others in positions gained based on academics. Ironically moderate success can be a barrier to great success.

[Loz]

A lot can be said for getting a degree after you start work.

You have experience and first hand knowledge then you want to deepen your knowledge and apply that wealth of knowledge in the workplace. Nobody thinks anything of people who work for 5-10 years before doing their MBA. The same should be the case for BAs. You know more about what you want and what you are willing to commit too after a few years of working.

That said, there are some great jobs that require no college education. Stock Brokers in the States are not required to have a college education and they can earn serious cash (or could before the days of HFT)

[Forethat]

Or as Alex Twist used to say, " You can't polish a turd "

Well, other than the fact that Alex Twist was completely wrong I understand what you mean..

[stander]

StreetCcowboy

Quote

"In the end, why would you go to the bother of employing an immigrant, with all the work permit hassles etc. when you can employ indigenous staff with the same or better qualifications? He would need to be clearly the better candidate..."

Your comment about employing locals versus the immigrant, hits the nail very much on the head.

When I first came to Thailand in the early eighties the Thai to expat ratio would have been one expat to every two Thai engineers, nowadays it is more like one expat to 15/20 Thai engineers.

I am personally reluctant to hire short term contract expats, as they all seem to come with way too much baggage and generally they are just not worth the hassle.

[GarryP]

No Degree = No Future ? If you are looking for a good job in Thailand then without a degree you are going to find it quite difficult, unless you know a lot of people and have the right contacts.

I believe that back in the early 80's only about 30 percent of UK school leavers went on to uni, while now it is more like 70 percent or so. Quite a big difference. So a lot of us older people (but not yet old) do not have degrees. When I was employed in Thailand it was not a big issue as the number of foreigners here was much smaller than it is now and the market was less competitive (lucky for me ), but it is certainly getting to be a concern now. Due to compulsory retirement where I work being 55, I will have to start job hunting again and I do not fancy my chances without having a degree. Unfortunately, my position does not involve any opportunity to network.

I may have to start thinking about getting a degree after all. What a bummer.

As to Thais, I think without a degree their future opportunities are sorely limited. Not everybody is outgoing and highly motivated enough or have the gift to be an entrepreneurial success, nor does everyone have the access to seed money to make that dream a reality. This does not leave much to choose from without a degree apart from minimum wage type jobs with few or no opportunities for advancement.

Edited due to poor grammar resulting from a lack of university educashun.

Edited December 13, 2010 by GarryP

[GuestHouse]

StreetCcowboy

Quote

"In the end, why would you go to the bother of employing an immigrant, with all the work permit hassles etc. when you can employ indigenous staff with the same or better qualifications? He would need to be clearly the better candidate..."

Your comment about employing locals versus the immigrant, hits the nail very much on the head.

When I first came to Thailand in the early eighties the Thai to expat ratio would have been one expat to every two Thai engineers, nowadays it is more like one expat to 15/20 Thai engineers.

I am personally reluctant to hire short term contract expats, as they all seem to come with way too much baggage and generally they are just not worth the hassle.

The more I read of this man's posts the more I like what he says.

[Cartmanpark]

A degree is just a proof of competence and knowledge, but I believe that there is a huge pool of competent people who are not being employed by organizations simply because they do not have a degree. Institutions want proof of competence to make the recruitment process easier, but it those unpolished diamonds that can be excellent assets to companies.

[jdinasia]

A degree is just a proof of competence and knowledge, but I believe that there is a huge pool of competent people who are not being employed by organizations simply because they do not have a degree. Institutions want proof of competence to make the recruitment process easier, but it those unpolished diamonds that can be excellent assets to companies.

The question then becomes ..... all other things being equal, would you pick someone with a degree over someone without? Since the labor pool is loaded with degreed people and they have proven they will at least stick with something long enough to get the degree, why would you pick someone without (again --- all other things being equal.)

I won't even give an interview to someone without a degree unless they find some way to REALLY impress me when leaving an application/resume/cv. Then they have a HUGE hurdle to jump. If the person had 10 years of experience in the area I was looking for and that included progressive levels of leadership roles they'd only get the job over a newly graduated student if they struck me as someone that was also very adaptable.

The newly graduated person will both expect less money AND not have been tainted by other people's differing management styles

[wolf5370]

I started in IT when I was just 18 - I was very lucky to get the job (based on interview and some past work experience I got for myself). I was the only person in my department for my company (a major high street bank head office IT dept) without a degree. I studied later, first with the OU and then later completed an MSc with a traditional University. Over more than twenty years working for major bluechips, I have had : PhD's, MSc and many BSc working with/for me - and quite a few that had managed to get the roles with sideways internal moves from business without degrees (or the odd new intake where they managed to wow the interviewer perhaps). I can honestly say that the best of them (and the worst too) were the non-lettered guys and girls. Some of the most dumb people I have had to work with were the best educated. I have come to the conclusion that a degree means sod all at the end of the day - just missed out on 4 years or more work experience.

The only reason to choose someone with a degree over someone without purely for the reason of the degree, is when hiring new entrants - i.e. trainees straight from Uni. Outside of that, experience (and work history) beats paperwork ten to one. I have hired non graduates over graduates many times simply because they showed a better aptitude in the interviews and assessment days. I have almost kicked people out of interviews when them come in with a snotty "I know it all, because I have a nice new piece of paper that says I do" attitude - I have had to work with such chaps and they nearly always stay at the bottom because they never learn and refuse to be taught as they already know it all; they make few friends outside of similar cliques.

Edited December 13, 2010 by wolf5370

[wolf5370]

A degree is just a proof of competence and knowledge, but I believe that there is a huge pool of competent people who are not being employed by organizations simply because they do not have a degree. Institutions want proof of competence to make the recruitment process easier, but it those unpolished diamonds that can be excellent assets to companies.

The question then becomes ..... all other things being equal, would you pick someone with a degree over someone without? Since the labor pool is loaded with degreed people and they have proven they will at least stick with something long enough to get the degree, why would you pick someone without (again --- all other things being equal.)

I won't even give an interview to someone without a degree unless they find some way to REALLY impress me when leaving an application/resume/cv. Then they have a HUGE hurdle to jump. If the person had 10 years of experience in the area I was looking for and that included progressive levels of leadership roles they'd only get the job over a newly graduated student if they struck me as someone that was also very adaptable.

The newly graduated person will both expect less money AND not have been tainted by other people's differing management styles

Not sure I completely follow the logic JD. You would honestly not take a person with 10 years experience and ten years of checkable work history over an unknown quantity that is chock full of out of date knowledge from his Uni and no checkable work history. Because he worked at university enough to get a degree, this means he will not jump ship and will stick at it? This is not my experience at all - in my world it is much more likely someone with the right quals will be head hunted and will demand faster, better wage increases as he knows he is more marketable as time goes by. Whereas someone without a degree, but with the proof they can do the job (and a history that tells me much more of the type of person they are) will know they are no more marketable than when they knocked at your door - they will also not necessarily demand a higher starting salary (if they do, this can easily be worn down over time with smaller payrises, if at all, and savings on training and personal development etc).

You also have to remember that while they will not be tainted by other management styles (which in itself is not always a bad thing - unless you are a complete arse to work for, they may actualy favourably compare you with past experience and may also give them more reason to stay) they may well have been hand held to varying degrees (depending on uni etc) and may not take to a work environment at all - with no experience youi have no way of knowing this and it could cost a lot with wasted training courses etc and time, if they quit after 3 months becasue they decided it isn't the career for them.

To each their own, but I think to dismiss such a large population of skilled individuals because they did not have the time, money or perhaps need (I didn't at first as I was offered my dream job while still at school - so got my degrees later in life whilst working) to get a degree when at school., is somewhat short sighted and smacks of missed opportunities. I guess it all depends what you are looking for - a "monkey job" then a degree can be used to narrow the field as anyone could do it anyway - a skilled or intellectual job you will miss many diamonds for the sake of the shinny stones with provenance.

Edited December 13, 2010 by wolf5370

[tim armstrong]

In IT universities are far too slow, because the industry changes every 6 weeks or so.(so I'm told) Someone who has done the latest short course is better qualified.

In my field - health, you need specialist knowledge at a high level plus hands on experience. PhDs - have been described as someone saying more and more about less and less. But I admire those who have the discipline to complete one.

[Moonrakers]

jd.

Your policy seems to be exclude those who can best demonstrate they are qualified and capable of doing the job. Each to their own, but it kind of goes against the grain of this discussion.

[jdinasia]

jd.

Your policy seems to be exclude those who can best demonstrate they are qualified and capable of doing the job. Each to their own, but it kind of goes against the grain of this discussion.

Adaptability is vital to me. The entire world is changing including our business model on a regular basis. If the person with 10 years of progressively challenging professional credentials (and no degree) struck me as adaptable he'd be "in like Flynn". If he wasn't adaptable he wouldn't have a chance (in the company or imho, in Thailand)

[wolf5370]

In IT universities are far too slow, because the industry changes every 6 weeks or so.(so I'm told) Someone who has done the latest short course is better qualified.

In my field - health, you need specialist knowledge at a high level plus hands on experience. PhDs - have been described as someone saying more and more about less and less. But I admire those who have the discipline to complete one.

Absolutely Tim. Once apon a time IT people (like me) had shelves full of manuals - now we do not (or not for anything other than show at any rate) simply because by the time the book is published its out of date - so reference somes via the internet and the vendors directly. In health and in edcation it makes real sense to have the learning behind you - my sister is a perscribing sister in the UK - that is she has 2 medical degrees, but not a doctorate - this allows her to do almost everything a doctor can (include prescribe a subset of drugs) but with out the pay or rsponsibility. She has spent more than 10 years studying at degree level ad have about 30 years of experience of nursing. SUch roles require knowledge - IT mostly requires creativity, ability to think out of the box, fairly good maths and good logic, no degree will teach you that anyway (other than the maths I guess), and some people are what I call sloggers, people that work their little bunnies off and get their degrees but never really understand - whilst others do no more than the minimum and absorb much more - and some people are just naturally have the right kind of mind but no inclination/chance(financially etc) to gain a degree - the trick is sorting the chaf from the wheat from all 3 groups.

[StreetCowboy]

Two points

1) From earlier in the thread - the OP is asking ofr advice on hiring an expat who has no degree, and people are quoting Bill Gates, Alan Sugar, Richard Branson. They didn't go to job interviews. My recommendation is - hire someone that does not need to apply for the job. That is how I got to where I am today - I have applied for a job when I graduated (a few offers out of many applications), and I think twice since - both unsuccessfully, and in the mean time I have propsepred through numerous employers - on recommendation and personal trust. But STILL not relevant to the OP who is looking to employ a new member of staff, presumably at a grade below where 'big name' or star performers would expect to come in...

2) People have been mentioning the importance of IT skills being up to date and the irrelevance of knowledge gained at university. THe point is that at university, one learns the fundamentals that one does not need in one's job every day - if you needed to know it every day, you would have learnt it by the Friday of your first week in the job anyway! THe principles of system analysis, software development and coding are the same now as they ever were: Requirements Design Implementation Verification Validation or Concept Feasibility Preliminary Working Product - or whatever lifecycle you want to implement. But so much software is developed by untrained people (thirty years ago, that was the best you could find!) who follow the Idea Write Bodge Release model. I think sometimes creative people think that their work is important, and don't like to get it criticised; whereas in fact it is their customers' work that is important, and we should be glad of any opportunity to improve our contribution to that!

Finally - we employ junior staff in part for their contribution to the business, but also for their future contribution to the business... Does the OP have a career path for the recruit that wil let him continue to contribute for years to come? Or perhaps the best contribution that the recruit can make is to take away a good impression of our company to his next employer... good customers are perhaps worth more than good staff!

SC

[wasabi]

I would not hire them. They may be the most brilliant person ever but if they fail the onus is on you and you will look bad. Just because they took some gambles with their life doesn't mean you should.

[OxfordWill]

I have not met an employer who considers it more important than his "feeling" or judgment of the person at interview. The problem is getting to the interview point without one, for large companies do need to whittle down their pool of applicants somehow without meeting them all. If your company is not large then it acts foolishly in my view rejecting people without degrees. Universities for the most part are very poor preludes to the workplace.

[JurgenG]

Problem solved. Yesterday we interviewed someone who had all the right qualifications ... and the right degrees.

I read all post with attention, I want to thank everybody for their advises, but it seems you all overlooked a very important point, if the new hired is not accepted by his colleagues, he will have little chance of success. In the previous company I was working for, much bigger, the applicants were first vetted by the Human Resources department to make sure he has all the right qualification for the job, then by the department head to make sure he will "fit in" with his people. Six month ago we hired a very good guy, really qualified, but with his new colleagues it was hate at first sight. The poor guy didn't last one month.

[mark45y]

I used to hire all he executive chef's for a franchise of Hilton hotels. We had 50 large hotels all over the world. We hired exclusively from three culinary universities. Of course that meant we only hired people with a degree.

Sure there were a lot better cooks available based on experience. But I didn't care about that. I was going to re train them all anyway.

Example. Today I am going to show you how to make a baked Alaska. (ice cream covered with meringue, browned and served flaming). The kid looked at me with a look of disgust. “I know how to make a baked Alaska, you don't need to show me.” I said, “OK, go ahead. I need 1500 of them to serve in two hours.” I watched him run around like a chicken with his head cut of for a while. He had never learned how to serve 1500 of anything in college. We ran high volume fine dining banquet facilities in all of our hotels. It wasn't enough to be a good cook you had to serve large volumes of gourmet food hot and beautiful and tasty in a short period of time. As much an engineering problem as cooking task. You want 20,000 medium rare NY strip steaks? I can show you how to do it. Schools don't teach that. Too expensive. They can teach you how to cook a small quantity of something but cooking in large quantities is dramatically different.

We hired graduates from those three schools only and only graduates with a 3.5 or above GPA. It gave us a base to design our training program. We knew what they knew and we built on that to turn out a finished chef.

For managers we hired from 4 universities, again using the same principle. We never hired experience because we wanted a certain kind of experience and that was experience in one of our Hilton hotels. Frankly I never cared how another hotel did it. I wanted it done my way.

Nothing would have worked if there was more than one system going on at the same time. It takes X amount of time to peel X amount of shrimp. That time multiplied by the cost of labor is added to the cost of the shrimp so I know what to charge for the product. I didn't care how Marriott did it. To be compared and evaluated all of our Hotels had to do it the same way. Being a chef is not just about creativity it is about cost. You can be a great cook but if you waste too much food the company goes broke.

The moral of my story is many large corporations don't want your experience. Experience may be a drawback to hiring you. They want potential. They want to train you in their methods and don't want you bringing other methods into the mix. The only way they can evaluate job candidates is by looking at college records. I always liked kids who worked their way through school because it meant they could handle pressure and they were tougher than the rich kids who went to school and partied instead of working as a dishwasher to pay for books.

[fletchsmile]

Problem solved. Yesterday we interviewed someone who had all the right qualifications ... and the right degrees.

I read all post with attention, I want to thank everybody for their advises, but it seems you all overlooked a very important point, if the new hired is not accepted by his colleagues, he will have little chance of success. In the previous company I was working for, much bigger, the applicants were first vetted by the Human Resources department to make sure he has all the right qualification for the job, then by the department head to make sure he will "fit in" with his people. Six month ago we hired a very good guy, really qualified, but with his new colleagues it was hate at first sight. The poor guy didn't last one month.

I think if you reread you'll find bina's post covered that quite eloquently as did a few others

[JurgenG]

Problem solved. Yesterday we interviewed someone who had all the right qualifications ... and the right degrees.

I read all post with attention, I want to thank everybody for their advises, but it seems you all overlooked a very important point, if the new hired is not accepted by his colleagues, he will have little chance of success. In the previous company I was working for, much bigger, the applicants were first vetted by the Human Resources department to make sure he has all the right qualification for the job, then by the department head to make sure he will "fit in" with his people. Six month ago we hired a very good guy, really qualified, but with his new colleagues it was hate at first sight. The poor guy didn't last one month.

I think if you reread you'll find bina's post covered that quite eloquently as did a few others

I guess my post was because I felt guilty not to hire the first guy, just trying to justify myself.

Apologize to Bina, she is the best anyway !!! :jap:

[jdinasia]

I have not met an employer who considers it more important than his "feeling" or judgment of the person at interview. The problem is getting to the interview point without one, for large companies do need to whittle down their pool of applicants somehow without meeting them all. If your company is not large then it acts foolishly in my view rejecting people without degrees. Universities for the most part are very poor preludes to the workplace.

In Thailand if you hire expats at all, you will be inundated with applications even if you are a small company. With a labor pool this large it is foolish not to have some basic requirements such as a degree (and usually relevant work experience -- though again in many cases I would prefer to hire without the experience basing my decisions on personality and adaptability. In fact, a small company wastes far more valuable resources in interviewing applicants early on than a large company does. (Large companies use HR to screen out people not just based on required qualifications but in testing, a smaller company ends up using a director's time for applicants.

I agree that for me it is often a 'feeling' that makes the final push. I get 20-30 people a week looking for employment at times, and never less than about 5 or 6. I probably have 20 positions opening up in April. I don't waste time interviewing people that don't meet my standards and STILL interview 2-3 a week. Some of the positions actually REQUIRE at least 1 degree, a couple do not. However, with as many applicants as I have to choose from it is a rare day that I give an interview to someone without a degree. In Thailand I have never hired someone that did not have a degree and some additional qualifications. It truly is an "employers market" in Thailand and it is the potential employee's responsibility to make themselves competitive.

[tfc]

I've heard the argument that having a degree shows that you can "last the distance" but in my own experience I don't think that it's hard at all to get a degree at least in some disciplines. University for myself and many of my friends was a giant party and getting a degree just meant hanging around for 3-4 years of fun and a small amount of work. Most people I know who got degrees saw University as one of the most enjoyable times of their lives not something they had to endure. Most of them say the opposite about the jobs that they now have.