The Political Elite

[Sam]

More recent than 8 years ago when he was "applying" for the job?

State senator and Senator were the couple in mind, spanning 1997-2008.

[Cow Poke]

State senator and Senator were the couple in mind, spanning 1997-2008.

And his great accomplishments during that time?

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Remember, he was elected from Chicago where DEAD people vote!

[Sam]

And his great accomplishments during that time?

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Remember, he was elected from Chicago where DEAD people vote!

[Cow Poke]

At the very least, he added qualifying jobs to his CV!

Yeah, he campaigned and got elected. What was it that he did as Senator that proved he could govern or was fit for the Presidency?

I'm not going to knock Walker much just because he didn't finish college (there but for the grace of God went so many of us). But folks who don't mind that Walker quit over 30 credits shy shouldn't be disparaging a Harvard Law grad because his CV includes a stint as a community organizer, either.

—Sam

But you'll defend Obama's "record" of accomplishments prior to his campaign for President. What was it, Sam, that he accomplished as Senator that shows he could govern a Nation?

When a company hires somebody, they don't just see a college education and it's a slam dunk! They want to know what EXPERIENCE they've had. What have they
ACCOMPLISHED that qualifies them for the job.

[Sam]

Yeah, he campaigned and got elected. What was it that he did as Senator that proved he could govern or was fit for the Presidency?



But you'll defend Obama's "record" of accomplishments prior to his campaign for President. What was it, Sam, that he accomplished as Senator that shows he could govern a Nation?

When a company hires somebody, they don't just see a college education and it's a slam dunk! They want to know what EXPERIENCE they've had. What have they
ACCOMPLISHED that qualifies them for the job.

I find it almost comical, at this point in time, to be re-litigating Obama's qualifications. He was a Harvard Law grad and spent nearly a decade in either state or federal Congress before getting The Job. He was qualified and he receives good marks from political scientists

[Cow Poke]

I find it almost comical, at this point in time, to be re-litigating Obama's qualifications.

In other words, you aint got squat.

[rogue06]

In my undergraduate days, I had to write a research paper on education theory. My professor recommended I write on an obscure sociologist (I can't remember his name offhand) who argued that there was no real purpose to modern education other than providing credentials. Over time, this would lead to credential inflation to the point where basic jobs would require a PhD. I wasn't convinced by the entire theory but I definitely thought there was something to it. (Yes, I got an A on the paper.)

After I presented my paper to my class, one of my friends said, "KG, that was scary how you just stood up there and told us how we're not going to find any jobs." I had no idea how right I would end up being.

I've heard some argue that because employers are now restricted from asking too many questions of perspective employees and former employers are restricted from saying very much about past employees that a college degree is becoming more and more important as being some sort of indicator of whether or not the job seeker would make a descent employee.

[Cow Poke]

I've heard some argue that because employers are now restricted from asking too many questions of perspective employees and former employers are restricted from saying very much about past employees that a college degree is becoming more and more important as being some sort of indicator of whether or not the job seeker would make a descent employee.

True. But any hiring manager worth his salt is going to look for SOMETHING the candidate actually DID that indicates he would be qualified for the job. And any prospective employee is going to want to highlight ACTUAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS that make him stand out as more capable than "the other college graduates".

[rogue06]

True. But any hiring manager worth his salt is going to look for SOMETHING the candidate actually DID that indicates he would be qualified for the job. And any prospective employee is going to want to highlight ACTUAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS that make him stand out as more capable than "the other college graduates".

I think back to a woman I dated that worked for the same company I did (only the second and last time I violated the "don't fish off the company pier" rule) who spent her last year there busting her butt trying to secure a good job reference/recommendation when she moved back to upstate New York. She was quite upset that the company would only verify that she worked for them between 1996 and 1999 and absolutely nothing else. I think it had a lot to do with this company being more paranoid about being sued than any company I had ever even heard of that caused them to refuse to ever say anything nice or bad about past employees.

[Adrift]

I've heard some argue that because employers are now restricted from asking too many questions of perspective employees and former employers are restricted from saying very much about past employees that a college degree is becoming more and more important as being some sort of indicator of whether or not the job seeker would make a descent employee.

What do you mean that employers are now restricted from asking too many questions from prospective employees or that former employers are restricted from saying much about past employees?

Also, I can't speak for other career fields, but in IT a college education is becoming less and less important. So many people are college educated now that looking for someone with a college education has become redundant. Employers are now looking for specialized certification (which is often far far cheaper to obtain than a degree), previous experience, and of course, networking.

[rogue06]

What do you mean that employers are now restricted from asking too many questions from prospective employees or that former employers are restricted from saying much about past employees?

Also, I can't speak for other career fields, but in IT a college education is becoming less and less important. So many people are college educated now that looking for someone with a college education has become redundant. Employers are now looking for specialized certification (which is often far far cheaper to obtain than a degree), previous experience, and of course, networking.

Many questions and "tests" given by employees in the past are no longer legally permitted and former employers can be sued by ex-employees for giving a bad reference. For instance, IIRC, if someone was fired because they were suspected of theft and they told another employer of it then that employee can sue them unless they had actually been prosecuted for theft.

[Adrift]

Many questions and "tests" given by employees in the past are no longer legally permitted and former employers can be sued by ex-employees for giving a bad reference. For instance, IIRC, if someone was fired because they were suspected of theft and they told another employer of it then that employee can sue them unless they had actually been prosecuted for theft.

Huh. When did that come into effect?

[Cow Poke]

I think back to a woman I dated that worked for the same company I did (only the second and last time I violated the "don't fish off the company pier" rule) who spent her last year there busting her butt trying to secure a good job reference/recommendation when she moved back to upstate New York. She was quite upset that the company would only verify that she worked for them between 1996 and 1999 and absolutely nothing else. I think it had a lot to do with this company being more paranoid about being sued than any company I had ever even heard of that caused them to refuse to ever say anything nice or bad about past employees.

Exactly, and here's the kicker. The HR department is the one that is likely to ONLY provide dates of hire / termination, and POSSIBLY answer the question "is she eligible for rehire". It's not "illegal" for them to answer other questions, it just opens them up being sued, as you so adeptly indicated.

What you WANT to do is to use a reference who is NOT "HR" - a supervisor, manager, underling.... who can verify that you did what you claimed you did as far as your stated "accomplishments".

For example, at my last company, I renegotiated the business lease in such a manner as to save the company $2.3M over the upcoming 10 years. That's quite an accomplishment. Stated on my resume, a potential hiring manager might ask "can you document that in any way?" I would refer them to one of my references at the bottom of the resume, or the leasing agent with whom I negotiated, or show them the spreadsheets where I worked out all the math.

It's downright goofy for somebody (other than applying for a job flipping burgers) to put SOMETHING on their resume that will cause a potential employer to think, "hmmmm... this guy adds value to the company!"

[Cow Poke]

And in a world where the GOP 2016 polls are ranking Ben Carson as high as they currently are, you've got a plank in the your party's eye that better deserves attending to!

Could you please save your preaching for somebody who's actually a Republican?

Thanks