The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Is having a degree or other qualifications important?
Does it matter whether you have that little piece of paper which tells the world you managed to get through 3-4 years of studying really mean anything in the real world?
Employers will always ask you what qualification you have, partly because it tells them that you actually stuck at something and learnt while you were there, but are these skills any better than, say, some manual skill or even life skills?
There is, of course, the argument that you will actually pick up some life skills at University, though these tend to involve things like how to make £20 last 2 more weeks and how to cope with a hangover or ways to hand in your work past the deadline. Work skills require experience of working, though, and many people go straight into university without having any of this.
But it must count for something if Employers still firmly believe in a system of scoring to show how intelligent you are. I certainly learnt from my years at university, but it’s hard to say whether I learnt anything that would be useful in my current role at work. I was lucky enough to have 3 years of working behind me before I even went to University. This helped prepare me for what was to come.
But even before Uni, you’re given grades at every level, from SATS and GCSEs to A-levels and their equivalent. Are these any less of an achievement or do they all amount to the same thing? Should there be classes in work skills and more work experience in education?
Does it matter whether you have that little piece of paper which tells the world you managed to get through 3-4 years of studying really mean anything in the real world?
Employers will always ask you what qualification you have, partly because it tells them that you actually stuck at something and learnt while you were there, but are these skills any better than, say, some manual skill or even life skills?
There is, of course, the argument that you will actually pick up some life skills at University, though these tend to involve things like how to make £20 last 2 more weeks and how to cope with a hangover or ways to hand in your work past the deadline. Work skills require experience of working, though, and many people go straight into university without having any of this.
But it must count for something if Employers still firmly believe in a system of scoring to show how intelligent you are. I certainly learnt from my years at university, but it’s hard to say whether I learnt anything that would be useful in my current role at work. I was lucky enough to have 3 years of working behind me before I even went to University. This helped prepare me for what was to come.
But even before Uni, you’re given grades at every level, from SATS and GCSEs to A-levels and their equivalent. Are these any less of an achievement or do they all amount to the same thing? Should there be classes in work skills and more work experience in education?
Page:
I got invited into Mensa when I was 12 I think
I didn't want to because I was scared of having to go to a building and have people look at me. Which I think was part of it.
I might retry, as you said, probably a good thing to put on a CV.
I didn't want to because I was scared of having to go to a building and have people look at me. Which I think was part of it.
I might retry, as you said, probably a good thing to put on a CV.
FantasyMeister wrote:
> You can still prime yourself for the Mensa examination though,
> just visit the local library and grab a copy of 'Boost Your IQ'
> or similar a couple of weeks before and do all the practice
> questions daily, back when I did it most of the questions that
> popped up on the Mensa paper were pretty much in the same vein
> so there were no real surprises.
Just like normal education then.
> You can still prime yourself for the Mensa examination though,
> just visit the local library and grab a copy of 'Boost Your IQ'
> or similar a couple of weeks before and do all the practice
> questions daily, back when I did it most of the questions that
> popped up on the Mensa paper were pretty much in the same vein
> so there were no real surprises.
Just like normal education then.
Marzman wrote:
> Wasn't it Anthea Turner who openly claimed to have cheated the
> test with the aid of a friend?
It was Carole Smillie, she didn't undertake her test under examination conditions like regular members so called a friend to help out with the final third of her test paper :)
You can still prime yourself for the Mensa examination though, just visit the local library and grab a copy of 'Boost Your IQ' or similar a couple of weeks before and do all the practice questions daily, back when I did it most of the questions that popped up on the Mensa paper were pretty much in the same vein so there were no real surprises.
> Wasn't it Anthea Turner who openly claimed to have cheated the
> test with the aid of a friend?
It was Carole Smillie, she didn't undertake her test under examination conditions like regular members so called a friend to help out with the final third of her test paper :)
You can still prime yourself for the Mensa examination though, just visit the local library and grab a copy of 'Boost Your IQ' or similar a couple of weeks before and do all the practice questions daily, back when I did it most of the questions that popped up on the Mensa paper were pretty much in the same vein so there were no real surprises.
FantasyMeister wrote:
> The last four words on my CV under Hobbies and Interests are
> "Active member of MENSA" which always worked a treat
> in getting me to interview stage. I'd recommend anyone to join
> (it only costs about £50 to sit the tests) and the
> certificate you get upon passing is a piece of paper that says
> you're clever.
Wasn't it Anthea Turner who openly claimed to have cheated the test with the aid of a friend? Even if you don't doubt MENSA and the way they issue their certificates, I can think of a lot of jobs where that would actually put people off, as employers don't always want the most able. The reasoning behind this is that a brighter unhappy employee will get less work done than a dimmer happy worker!
> The last four words on my CV under Hobbies and Interests are
> "Active member of MENSA" which always worked a treat
> in getting me to interview stage. I'd recommend anyone to join
> (it only costs about £50 to sit the tests) and the
> certificate you get upon passing is a piece of paper that says
> you're clever.
Wasn't it Anthea Turner who openly claimed to have cheated the test with the aid of a friend? Even if you don't doubt MENSA and the way they issue their certificates, I can think of a lot of jobs where that would actually put people off, as employers don't always want the most able. The reasoning behind this is that a brighter unhappy employee will get less work done than a dimmer happy worker!
Jmaul wrote:
> My answer would be perfectly logical, informed and
> 'intelligent' but it won't match up to the answer you want to
> hear, so I'd fail the interview. In that sense left-field
> questions aren't any more or less contrived than normal
> questions.
That's the point of these types of questions. There isn't an 'answer we want to hear', it's the way you answer the question. Logical, and 'intelligent' is perfect, even if your answer is along the lines of "I don't really know enough about the subject to provide an informed answer."
When you've got 10 people in front of you all with a piece of paper with 2:1 written on it you need something to differentiate them, which is why we have interviews.
Trish had an interesting point about work experience earlier in the thread. Again if I had 10 people turn up with degrees but one had work experience then they'd be favourite, however, in some cases a fresh degree with no work experience is ideal (e.g. if you're looking to recruit into your company's graduate scheme which wants to mold new entrants into the company philosophy - banks, insurance companies, large industrials etc. - without them having been tainted by other work ethics from other employers who do things differently).
There are ways around the 'no work experience' barriers though. There are plenty of equivalents, e.g. "sure, I haven't worked for the past 5 years, but that's because I've been busy pursuing my interests which consist of being an active member of a gaming community, organising leagues, taking part in discussions, running clans and editing websites". It's not perfect but at least the employer is a bit more informed and it's better than "I'm a couch potato and WoW-addict."
The last four words on my CV under Hobbies and Interests are "Active member of MENSA" which always worked a treat in getting me to interview stage. I'd recommend anyone to join (it only costs about £50 to sit the tests) and the certificate you get upon passing is a piece of paper that says you're clever.
> My answer would be perfectly logical, informed and
> 'intelligent' but it won't match up to the answer you want to
> hear, so I'd fail the interview. In that sense left-field
> questions aren't any more or less contrived than normal
> questions.
That's the point of these types of questions. There isn't an 'answer we want to hear', it's the way you answer the question. Logical, and 'intelligent' is perfect, even if your answer is along the lines of "I don't really know enough about the subject to provide an informed answer."
When you've got 10 people in front of you all with a piece of paper with 2:1 written on it you need something to differentiate them, which is why we have interviews.
Trish had an interesting point about work experience earlier in the thread. Again if I had 10 people turn up with degrees but one had work experience then they'd be favourite, however, in some cases a fresh degree with no work experience is ideal (e.g. if you're looking to recruit into your company's graduate scheme which wants to mold new entrants into the company philosophy - banks, insurance companies, large industrials etc. - without them having been tainted by other work ethics from other employers who do things differently).
There are ways around the 'no work experience' barriers though. There are plenty of equivalents, e.g. "sure, I haven't worked for the past 5 years, but that's because I've been busy pursuing my interests which consist of being an active member of a gaming community, organising leagues, taking part in discussions, running clans and editing websites". It's not perfect but at least the employer is a bit more informed and it's better than "I'm a couch potato and WoW-addict."
The last four words on my CV under Hobbies and Interests are "Active member of MENSA" which always worked a treat in getting me to interview stage. I'd recommend anyone to join (it only costs about £50 to sit the tests) and the certificate you get upon passing is a piece of paper that says you're clever.
FantasyMeister wrote:
> E.g. if I were employing someone with a solid Transport Degree
> as my new warehouse supervisor I'd ask something along the lines
> of "What are your views on the smoking ban?" It may
> sound random but I'd get a feel for how they'd get on with half
> our drivers constantly flicking their fag ends next to the
> diesel tanks.
Your own suggested responses reveal that its hardly a question out of left field. Its related to the job. This is quite a bit different to asking somebody their opinions on a subject that has no direct implications for the job you are asking them to do.
> E.g. if I were employing someone with a solid Transport Degree
> as my new warehouse supervisor I'd ask something along the lines
> of "What are your views on the smoking ban?" It may
> sound random but I'd get a feel for how they'd get on with half
> our drivers constantly flicking their fag ends next to the
> diesel tanks.
Your own suggested responses reveal that its hardly a question out of left field. Its related to the job. This is quite a bit different to asking somebody their opinions on a subject that has no direct implications for the job you are asking them to do.
I don't know what your everyday typical conversations are like but I can safely say I've never heard anyone come up with "what do you think of the situation in Darfur?" or "how would you tackle global warming?" out of the blue.
I just don't get how you can say that's applying intelligence rather than knowledge. For example, if someone were to ask me the first question above (Darfur) I wouldn't have a clue what to say, because I have very little knowledge of Darfur, but if they were to ask me the second I could probably blabber on about it for ages. "left-field" questions aren't really any less about knowledge or more about intelligence than any other questions.
Someone could be the most intelligent and practical person in the world but if you ask them about something they've never heard/read about they're not going to be able to give you a very good answer.
To me it just seems irrelevant that these questions are less expected than the usual interview questions, because you're still just looking for a stock answer that suits what the employer wants to hear. If I was to answer your smoking ban question, you probably wouldn't have got the answer you're looking for. My answer would be perfectly logical, informed and 'intelligent' but it won't match up to the answer you want to hear, so I'd fail the interview. In that sense left-field questions aren't any more or less contrived than normal questions.
I just don't get how you can say that's applying intelligence rather than knowledge. For example, if someone were to ask me the first question above (Darfur) I wouldn't have a clue what to say, because I have very little knowledge of Darfur, but if they were to ask me the second I could probably blabber on about it for ages. "left-field" questions aren't really any less about knowledge or more about intelligence than any other questions.
Someone could be the most intelligent and practical person in the world but if you ask them about something they've never heard/read about they're not going to be able to give you a very good answer.
To me it just seems irrelevant that these questions are less expected than the usual interview questions, because you're still just looking for a stock answer that suits what the employer wants to hear. If I was to answer your smoking ban question, you probably wouldn't have got the answer you're looking for. My answer would be perfectly logical, informed and 'intelligent' but it won't match up to the answer you want to hear, so I'd fail the interview. In that sense left-field questions aren't any more or less contrived than normal questions.
Jmaul wrote:
> Not everyone is interested in or cares very much about politics,
> but that doesn't mean they're not intelligent. Plus, if the
> person you're asking has say, a...Politics degree, you probably
> ARE asking them what their thesis was about, and they'll
> obviously be able to provide a much more informed and
> interesting point of view than the average person.
That wasn't really the point of questions out of left-field. If you were to ask someone what their thesis was about they can easily tell you because they spent months writing it, on the other hand if you ask them a typical question that might come up in everyday conversation you get an instant feeling of whether or not they're able to apply their intelligence (as opposed to their knowledge) to other areas.
E.g. if I were employing someone with a solid Transport Degree as my new warehouse supervisor I'd ask something along the lines of "What are your views on the smoking ban?" It may sound random but I'd get a feel for how they'd get on with half our drivers constantly flicking their fag ends next to the diesel tanks.
1) If their response was along the lines of "What smoking ban?" you'd know that they might have a decent degree and knowledge of the industry you were employing them for but they might be clueless about everything else.
2) If their response was to clam up and not be able to hold a conversation about an everyday topic you knew you might have a social skills issue, interview nerves aside, because this is someone you're thinking of running a warehouse with a crew of 30 loaders and hundreds of drivers.
3) If they were able to give an intelligent response pointing out the pros and cons and how it was likely to affect our business and health and safety policies in the future then they'd usually be shortlisted for a second interview.
The third response is important, because you then know you're dealing with not only got someone with in depth knowledge of the industry, you've got someone who can apply the techniques they've learned from studying to other areas, which is vital for when you employ them and later on ask them to diversify (e.g. plan and implement a new warehouse layout, cover the phones, promotion to area distribution manager etc).
Personally when I started there (as a sales order clerk) I was asked "What do you think of the situation in South Africa?" This was back in 94 when Mandela had just been made president. They were checking to see if I could hold a conversation rather than spout the usual answers to the usual interview questions which most people have prepared before attending.
> Not everyone is interested in or cares very much about politics,
> but that doesn't mean they're not intelligent. Plus, if the
> person you're asking has say, a...Politics degree, you probably
> ARE asking them what their thesis was about, and they'll
> obviously be able to provide a much more informed and
> interesting point of view than the average person.
That wasn't really the point of questions out of left-field. If you were to ask someone what their thesis was about they can easily tell you because they spent months writing it, on the other hand if you ask them a typical question that might come up in everyday conversation you get an instant feeling of whether or not they're able to apply their intelligence (as opposed to their knowledge) to other areas.
E.g. if I were employing someone with a solid Transport Degree as my new warehouse supervisor I'd ask something along the lines of "What are your views on the smoking ban?" It may sound random but I'd get a feel for how they'd get on with half our drivers constantly flicking their fag ends next to the diesel tanks.
1) If their response was along the lines of "What smoking ban?" you'd know that they might have a decent degree and knowledge of the industry you were employing them for but they might be clueless about everything else.
2) If their response was to clam up and not be able to hold a conversation about an everyday topic you knew you might have a social skills issue, interview nerves aside, because this is someone you're thinking of running a warehouse with a crew of 30 loaders and hundreds of drivers.
3) If they were able to give an intelligent response pointing out the pros and cons and how it was likely to affect our business and health and safety policies in the future then they'd usually be shortlisted for a second interview.
The third response is important, because you then know you're dealing with not only got someone with in depth knowledge of the industry, you've got someone who can apply the techniques they've learned from studying to other areas, which is vital for when you employ them and later on ask them to diversify (e.g. plan and implement a new warehouse layout, cover the phones, promotion to area distribution manager etc).
Personally when I started there (as a sales order clerk) I was asked "What do you think of the situation in South Africa?" This was back in 94 when Mandela had just been made president. They were checking to see if I could hold a conversation rather than spout the usual answers to the usual interview questions which most people have prepared before attending.
FantasyMeister wrote:
> And here's a tip: We never used to ask questions like "So
> what was your thesis about?" to check level of
> intelligence, we'd ask questions like "So what do you think
> of the current situation in Darfur?" or "If money were
> no object how would you tackle global warming?" or
> "What are your views on Iraq?" to see how intelligence
> was put to use.
I don't really agree with this.
Not everyone is interested in or cares very much about politics, but that doesn't mean they're not intelligent. Plus, if the person you're asking has say, a...Politics degree, you probably ARE asking them what their thesis was about, and they'll obviously be able to provide a much more informed and interesting point of view than the average person.
this just sounds like elitist snobbery.
"to see how intelligence was put to use"
there are plenty of other indicators of "useful" intelligence besides politics.
> And here's a tip: We never used to ask questions like "So
> what was your thesis about?" to check level of
> intelligence, we'd ask questions like "So what do you think
> of the current situation in Darfur?" or "If money were
> no object how would you tackle global warming?" or
> "What are your views on Iraq?" to see how intelligence
> was put to use.
I don't really agree with this.
Not everyone is interested in or cares very much about politics, but that doesn't mean they're not intelligent. Plus, if the person you're asking has say, a...Politics degree, you probably ARE asking them what their thesis was about, and they'll obviously be able to provide a much more informed and interesting point of view than the average person.
this just sounds like elitist snobbery.
"to see how intelligence was put to use"
there are plenty of other indicators of "useful" intelligence besides politics.
trish wrote:
> I think the tide is turning with regards to this.
I'd like to think so but I'm not too optimistic, as I think it's more along the lines of who you already know at a company, that determines whether or not you are given a job.
That's my experience anyway
> I think the tide is turning with regards to this.
I'd like to think so but I'm not too optimistic, as I think it's more along the lines of who you already know at a company, that determines whether or not you are given a job.
That's my experience anyway
Page: