In 2015, Clarissa Farr, Headmistress at the £22,000 a year St Paul’s Girls’ school (http://spgs.org/) said “The sacred esteem of the old institutions is going to go. Far fewer of these brilliant youngsters are going to go to university in the long term. Most of our students currently go to the great academic institutions of the world. I would forecast in the future that will not be the case.” She told her students to consider going straight into the workplace instead of wasting time studying at the UK’s top universities. She said going straight into work could be a more exciting and faster route to the top. (https://www.recruitment-international.co.uk/blog/2017/03/ftse-100-female-leaders-three-times-more-likely-to-need-qualifications-from-a-prestigious-university).
Women leaders in the UK’s biggest firms are three times more likely than male counterparts to have degrees from either Russell Group or Ivy League universities, according to preliminary findings from The Leadership 10k report from Green Park. http://www.green-park.co.uk/
Green Park’s research finds that 76% of the total employees in top 20 positions across the FTSE 100 who graduated from a Russell Group university are female while 70% of leaders who graduated from an Ivy League university are female. Overall, this means that women are three times more likely to need a qualification from a prestigious university to gain a board position in the UK than men. However, close inspection of background data reveals 10 percent of the FTSE 100 and 250 CEOs didn’t attend University at all. (http://www.hrreview.co.uk/hr-news/recruitment/surprisingly-10-of-ftse100250-ceos-did-not-attend-university/49335)
The UK’s Target Careers company notes that many jobs – some of which you may have previously assumed were (sic) “esteemed” – don’t require a degree. These include accountancy, PR, marketing, construction, HR, investment banking and investment management. (https://targetcareers.co.uk/careers-advice/choices-about-uni/242-which-degree-do-you-need-for-which-career). The last 3 in particular surprised me but maybe like many my age, the default mindset is that “higher” jobs must have a degree.
In 2013 it was reported that the proportion of recent graduates working in jobs for which a higher educational background (is) not usually required was 47% (this year), up sharply from 39% before the financial crisis struck. Most of the increase (has) come since the 2008/9 recession, the Office for National Statistics said.
I have a degree myself, from a now-Russell Group university, so broadly keep an eye on deliberations University and college degrees have, over the past few years, been under the microscope – hence, not least, the media’s focus on rising fees: it raised the question, is it actually worth it? Many business leaders say no. Most of the criticism has had to do with the relationship between cost and benefit.
Questions will often be raised about the quality of an applicant regardless of whether they have a degree or not: does a degree automatically mean a candidate is “better suited”? In my experience, sometimes? yes; always? categorically not. Could it really be that certain prestigious and seemingly valuable credentials are sending negative signals to potential employers?
A good example of this – of which I have extensive awareness based on how often I see it – is PRINCE2. Many employers like it, yes; but the prerequisite nature it had in the past is, I’d suggest, gone. I hate to upset those of you who may feel it’s a necessity and hugely valuable but of all my clients, almost all PMs have one. They are, I’d posit, ten a penny (where did that phrase come from?). So, am I recruiting a project manager? No. But would I assume that someone with a PRINCE2 is automatically better than someone who doesn’t? Sorry but emphatically not.
The above would suggest that bosses and educators interpreting the value and meaning of degrees varies, but amongst all of them there seems to be the recognition that, increasingly, everyone involved in hiring is trying to look beyond credentials.
What they’re looking for, to a large extent, is what they call “cultural fit.” Specific technical skills are getting increasingly easy to measure, so employers focus instead on assessing whether a candidate understands the context in which the business is operating, will be highly motivated on the job, and will get along with the rest of the team.
Reading into this further, many commentators feel there are two hiring mentalities presently coexisting in the tech world. Clearly that sector is a great benchmark since it is so large, entirely global and ever-growing, faster than any other. The suggestion is that startups have what some call “a lean mentality”, while growth companies are in a well-funded race against time. The way these mindsets, especially their fears, affect how candidates are screened is significant. Prestigious degrees can be a liability with the first group, but still have value with the second.
A lot of the view of some commentators seems to be that the start-up seeks out a commando mentality and a willingness to “action” – where a prestigious degree can be a warning sign if not a negative signal: “he spends all day studying, we just need him to get on with the job” idea.
“Commandos” do their own thing and are effective as individual operators. They are self-motivated and usually have drive. It would be reasonable to think that many / most fledgling businesses don’t really provide consistent direction or have operational procedures for recognition or incentives. They haven’t been around long enough, or grown large enough, to plan these and bed them in. These companies may prefer workers who will find ways to create value with no input, feedback, or immediate recognition from management.
Many prestigious degrees — even in relevant fields like software engineering — can be looked upon with suspicion, particularly where candidates have several. And MBAs in particular are seen by some as bright, flashing warning signals. An MBA from a top school is sometimes perceived as adding limited value at premium cost – the holder frequently assuming they can command a larger salary.
I have found many times whilst writing that people who I often refer to as “certificated to the eyeballs” are perceived – they often explicitly tell me – by past employers as “what does he actually do all day?” Self-development is fine; continuous self-development on a blind assumption that it automatically makes you a more attractive candidate is, frankly, unintelligent – rather ironic don’t you think?
There are plenty of ways to be an attractive candidate besides a fancy degree.
