"Why does that suddenly seem ridiculous?"

[unixronin]

Today’s Dilbert strip nails one of my principal problems with the Harvard School of Business and its MBA program.

I will never understand how Harvard managed to slip the ridiculous idea over on American business that having studied how to run an abstract ideal company on paper qualifies anyone to step straight into any company and run it competently without having any substantial in-depth understanding whatsoever of the company, its product, its processes, or its market.

Comments

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

It's a symptom of a society that's overly hung up on paper credentials. This is the same culture that has come up with irrelevancies like testing for the use of illegal drugs, and running credit checks[1] as routine pre-employment screening.

[1]I can see positions where those things would be relevant. But for most jobs? I don't think so. Employers in most other countries don't seem to do this stuff and they compete just fine.

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

This is the same culture that has come up with irrelevancies like testing for the use of illegal drugs, and running credit checks[1] as routine pre-employment screening.

They're really not irrelevant, you've missed what they're there for.

They're replacing the job interview questions that you used to be asked, and most specifically, the "references".

Nowadays, no place of business will officially give out a bad reference, no matter what reason you left for.
It's a case where regulation/legislation and judicial rulings have created a consequence unintended, but obvious.


I paid a guy a few years back to equip me and train me to detail cars and airplanes, and had things (not) worked out, he was going to hire me part time to work for him. I thought if the tech field crashed enough that it would be a good skill to have. It's been somewhat handy. But part of the reason he was willing to train a potential competitor was that I was still employed, and he needed some help from time to time.


His insurance mandated that any employee he have have a 4 year college degree. (He had a $3M insurance rider, he worked on some big jets from time to time. And it's not hard to run up a big bill fast if you break avionics/antennas, scratch paint....)

Now, if all you do is look at that, it's outstandingly ridiculous.

But if you stop and ask why might they put that requirement on, and more importantly, who did you just EXCLUDE... it makes perfect sense.

They can't legally tell him "You can't go hire some random guy and pay him close to nothing, and/or pick up some 'migrant workers' from outside Home Depot." That's illegal.

But it's perfectly legal for them to put an "education requirement" on - and a 4 year degree suddenly moves a lot of those people you'd want to exclude from your risk pool out of it.

Same things, different method of getting there. But because of the external legal requirements, it gets indirect, not obvious, and inefficient.

The drug and credit checks are legal, and it's the best way from the perspective of the employer to find out what kind of personality you have. It's not as efficient as calling somebody you used to work with, but at least it's also impartial.