Trump signs order prioritizing job skills over college degree in government hiring

[holbritter]

We won't know exactly how the new classifications prioritize what, until the precise modifications come out. But it opens the door for such abuses. What we do know is that it significantly reduces the scope and requirements of objective classifications that were previously put in place for years. Same could be said for experience. At best, we had some anecdotal comments made from industry execs that publicly spoke with Trump about the new classifications, one raved about how a long time truck driver who lost his job was able to get a new career after just a year of online programming. If that example is any illustration, I don't really see how 'years' of relevant experience would supercede and replace a qualified degree with this new system. How do we know that this experience based criteria can objectively field candidates any better than an education based criteria? One thing about an accredited college education is you can pretty much believe that candidates from that pool have a pretty objective and rigorous vetting before they even get put in a position.

I really can't understand all the whining from those on here that argue that they employ college idiots. I can only imagine that they never hired from accredited colleges (maybe Trump university, which wouldn't qualify), and never took the time to interview college graduates before hiring, or were not qualified to interview to begin with. Of the hundreds of candidates I've interviewed, very few hires could not perform competently on the job.

All these new college graduates who worked hard for years and likely gambled their entire future on the promise of hard work pays off, are being marginalized by the Trump admin. Sadly, Trump is doing everything he can to minimize their chances, right as we are facing the biggest unemployment crisis in history. And there's a history of Trump administration hiring people that made up college educations (like mina chang) and got put in high paying jobs. This just makes those types of hires, easier to slip through the cracks. There's not a lot to suggest he really cares about improving objective hiring standards or improving quality of living wages, but I can see how it sounds good on the surface (like lots of his specious statements).

Because that's the way it was done beforegoing to college was the thing to do. I don't know how old you are, but it might surprise you that getting a college degree wasn't the most important qualification, experience was. It wasn't until about 20 years ago that having a degree was a requirement for many positions.

A high school diploma was the bar. Then an 2 year degree was the big thing, then a 4 year, etc.

Many jobs were based on experience and/or merit. You were hired at entry level, proved you could do the work well, and moved yourself up the ladder. When having a college degree became a thing, it effectively placed a ceiling on those that may have worked for years at a job from moving up, even though they had the experience, in favor of those who just graduated college.

 

[ludin]

All depends how OPM takes Trumps EO to make changes to the classification series. If OPM leaves the more professional series alone, it won't be a problem.

Since Trump's EO has not been implemented yet, can't do it. :lamo

Right so your argument that he is dumbing down the government workforce was pure bull****. just as i knew it was.

 

[mike2810]

Right so your argument that he is dumbing down the government workforce was pure bull****. just as i knew it was.

So your counter argument is that I posted pure bull****.
Yep, that convinced me.:mrgreen:

If your so up to speed, please post the links to the changes in the OPM guidance. Do you even understand the different job series requirements that exists for Federal jobs?

Why don't you explain how Trumps proposal would improve applicants for lets say a meteorologist or a nuclear scientist job. You do realize the feds hire such people.:mrgreen:

 

[Napoleon]

I'm guessing you're not a hiring manager in corporate America?

Yes an no. Hiring managers don’t really exist anymore - at least not in the capacity they once did. Most of that power resides within HR recruitment departments these days. Managers still conduct interviews, but only with the filtered candidates chosen by HR (which has the authority to override a manager’s decision). That’s how it works in most public corporations now.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

I think you would find Borat more your speed.

That would be a reflection of your 'higher education'.

 

[Aletheia]

It also prioritizes those who have sat around for years with less skills and knowledge to be hired before a college graduate, dis-incentivizing getting a college degree. It puts a priority on nepotism and who you know over hard work and years of investing in education.

If the bill prioritizes those things, how can the bold be true????

I don't have time to find the original thread so I just pasted the bolded.

The EO puts a combination of skills and experience over college degree and institution.
Suppose NASA desperately needs a Sr. programming candidate to fill a mission critical software development job that guides autonomous space vehicles.

If you have a candidate who has sat around for 30 years and gotten by on several self taught, arguably obsolete languages (since there is now no strict formal criteria) against a recent CalTech PhD candidate with only 3 years real world experience and a thesis, publications, and a few languages that are much more geared to the job requirement, the first candidate now gets priority over the latter. On paper the first candidate certainly has more years of experience and can look like he has more skills, but he does not, and the mission fails miserably.

The scenario may not always be the case, but it can prioritize those with less skills and knowledge in cases like the above, whereas before it did not. I only need to find one example to show the bolded statement is not impossible. There are plenty more scenarios I can imagine that support it. Obviously, scenarios with subjective criteria like nepotism, politics, etc.. are also more possible now. I think I wrote that counterpoint to someone who argued the opposite is always the case. I don't have time to look back at all the context right now.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

It also prioritizes those who have sat around for years with less skills and knowledge to be hired before a college graduate, dis-incentivizing getting a college degree. It puts a priority on nepotism and who you know over hard work and years of investing in education.



I don't have time to find the original thread so I just pasted the bolded.

The EO puts a combination of skills and experience over college degree and institution.
Suppose NASA desperately needs a Sr. programming candidate to fill a mission critical software development job that guides autonomous space vehicles.

If you have a candidate who has sat around for 30 years and gotten by on several self taught, arguably obsolete languages (since there is now no strict formal criteria) against a recent CalTech PhD candidate with only 3 years real world experience and a thesis, publications, and a few languages that are much more geared to the job requirement, the first candidate now gets priority over the latter. On paper the first candidate certainly has more years of experience and can look like he has more skills, but he does not, and the mission fails miserably.

The scenario may not always be the case, but it can prioritize those with less skills and knowledge in cases like the above, whereas before it did not. I only need to find one example to show the bolded statement is not impossible. There are plenty more scenarios I can imagine that support it. Obviously, scenarios with subjective criteria like nepotism, politics, etc.. are also more possible now. I think I wrote that counterpoint to someone who argued the opposite is always the case. I don't have time to look back at all the context right now.

Perhaps you may be interested in what the great (I believe) Thomas Sowell has to say on the subject. He, as usual, nails it..YouTube

 

[Lursa]

It also prioritizes those who have sat around for years with less skills and knowledge to be hired before a college graduate, dis-incentivizing getting a college degree. It puts a priority on nepotism and who you know over hard work and years of investing in education.



I don't have time to find the original thread so I just pasted the bolded.

The EO puts a combination of skills and experience over college degree and institution.
Suppose NASA desperately needs a Sr. programming candidate to fill a mission critical software development job that guides autonomous space vehicles.

If you have a candidate who has sat around for 30 years and gotten by on several self taught, arguably obsolete languages (since there is now no strict formal criteria) against a recent CalTech PhD candidate with only 3 years real world experience and a thesis, publications, and a few languages that are much more geared to the job requirement, the first candidate now gets priority over the latter. On paper the first candidate certainly has more years of experience and can look like he has more skills, but he does not, and the mission fails miserably.

The scenario may not always be the case, but it can prioritize those with less skills and knowledge in cases like the above, whereas before it did not. I only need to find one example to show the bolded statement is not impossible. There are plenty more scenarios I can imagine that support it. Obviously, scenarios with subjective criteria like nepotism, politics, etc.. are also more possible now. I think I wrote that counterpoint to someone who argued the opposite is always the case. I don't have time to look back at all the context right now.

It's your characterization of their motivation/behavior that I object to. It's not realistic at all so I'd be interested in some kind of linked support. IMO you are imagining a much more rigid policy than is realistic.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa