PROFESSIONALS AND BUSINESSES PARTICIPATING IN DISCUSSION
Hrm, Recruitment, Training And Development,
Expert In "nothing"
Human Capital Development Specialist
Freshers are not the substitute for Experience. I strongly feel, that on the critical assignments the sheer power of judgment and the ability to execute the conflict resolution is necessary.
It is said by famous critic author that- God took 7 days to create a Entry Level Professional [Freshers]. On 8th day he rested and on 9th day, God started answering complaints from their Bosses.
Gurleen, to the further statement that 'Experience Speaks'. I would to continue that, this totally depends on the learning and successful strategy execution done by the experience holder.
From India, Mumbai
I do strongly agree with you.. Also I do not see much difference with Diploma 7 years with a graduate with five years experience.. But again it varies with institution offers degrees and the organisation the diploma holder worked with
From India, Tiruppur
your'sExperience is more valuable than education, coz anybody havind a loads of edu and no exp wats the value of it???? coz practically exp is more imp. though edu has value or it is needed to explore our internal morals and studies (especially edu in foreign countries), exp counts more, and if anybody has exp and less edu he can negotiate his value in the market...
EXPERIENCE IS THE GURU
From India, Nasik
navjotgillCan we compare Apples to Oranges? I don't think there can be a common yardstick to measure the competence of fresher and experienced person. Depending upon the realities of the industry (factors like attrition, profitability, stage in product life cycle for Cash Cows & Stars of BCG Matrix, etc) & the vision, an organization can identify the right mix of freshers and experienced people. A fresher through higher education may have developed some talent that is likely to convert into strength in future. If the organization, after factoring in attrition details, feels that there is a possibility of sizable return on investment from fresher then it should embrace them. Similarly there can be pros and cons in hiring experienced people. While the pros are not too tough to guess, the cons can be related to higher wage bills, adaptability issues, etc. We know that there is a difference in curriculum of diploma and that of a degree. Being rich in practical knowledge is not the only thing that matters. It will only demonstrate ones performance and may hardly enhance the performance capability of an individual. One has to continuously keep making new inroads into the field of theory to stay competitive by increasing ones performance capability. Had practical knowledge been everything then theory of relativity would have never been developed. So an organization needs to have a right mix of people with practical knowledge and theoretical knowledge.
SomGollakotaAllow me to share my experience (no pun indented).
As I was starting my career many years ago, everywhere I went, people asked for experience and did not care about my hard-earned knowledge and strong foundation. So, for years that followed, I fought the "experience vs. knowledge" syndrome and hired people for their knowledge, assessing what they had to offer, rather than just their number of years of experience.
Now that I have been around for over 16 years and seen much of what there is to see, I have a slightly different view. Experience matters! What experience offers, knowledge alone does not offer. What I learned by being there and swimming through those rough waters, no book, no schooling, no education could have given me!
So, based on my experience of life and work, the following is my (the experienced me) view.
1. There is no substitute for strong knowledge-base
2. There is no substitute for experience
3. Good schools are not a measure of knowledge and application of such knowledge (nor are they substitute for experience) - I have seen far too many Grads from good schools falter due to lack of experience
4. Number of years of experience alone is not a measure of true knowledge or experience (I have seen people with 3 years of experience handling situations better than their 10-, 15- or 20-year experienced counterparts)
Here is a hiring method that worked for me, and most hiring managers in the US.
1. Review the resume
2. Does the candidate have more than 3 to 5 years of experience? Focus the interview on the experience, frame questions so as to verify his/her experience (can they handle the situations that they said they handled in their resume?)
3. Does the candidate have less than 3 years of experience? Focus the interview on the experience as well as the schooling
4. Focus the interview on what the candidate has to offer the company and the position, rather than what the candidate has done in the past (forward looking)
As far as I am concerned, in today's fast paced world, people forget what they did last year. So, how does it matter what I did 16 years ago in my school/college? What matters is this. Does my recent experience (last 5 to 10 years) map to your job requirement? Do my attitude and responses support what I said in my resume? Do my attitude and responses translate to a good fit for the job and the company? If the answers to these three questions are a yes, then why should you care what I did 16 years ago? If you do, you are trusting a piece of paper given by a school over a decade and half ago more than you trust yourself (plain and simple)!
This is my approach towards hiring. Does hiring you make good business sense? Can I verify (in the interview) what you have to offer? Great! Formal Education? Fill it in the job application. I will verify if you have lied or told me the truth. I am going to hire you regardless of your educational background, so long as you are capable (unless you lied on your job application or your resume:-) )
From United States, Woodinville
muzzammil236Both go hand in hand with each other ... It might be possible that you select a candidate with higher degree (and with theoretical concepts) without hands on practicality of the matter. And it is possible that you select a candidate with a century of useless (and negative) experiences. Be cautious before selection, a one hour of positive experience is better than 1 century of negative and bureaucratic experience.
Have a nice day!.
From Pakistan, Karachi
komal raichandaniDear Friends,
I feel that for senior positions, experience does matter a lot, but the fact remains that for an entry level, a fresher is preferable, in case you want a commited long term employee, it is so bcoz, they have never worked before so they are open to anything, and will be comparatively more adaptable.........a first job is very special, so one is more likely to be more enthusiastic, and willing to prove himself......and if, as an HR we r able to harness that potential and enthusiasm, he will stay with us for long, and contribute his best
From India, Hyderabad
sreenirmal HRDear Som... I do agree with you. Experience matters! One who knows swimming practically than who knows swimming therotically, matters a lot!
The education is the base, which provides knowledge to do a task.
However to do a job, the person's grasping power, capability, interest and subject he learned is the matter not the school.
The experience is the Backbone for the senior positions, not for all.
It’s important for an organization to run.
You should keep in mind,
You can mould a fresher, as needed for your organization requirement.
Today's all experts, one day they were fresher in their past. Chances make them experts.
As per my opinion; for a good Organization, we need the mix-up of experienced and fresher on job.
From Qatar, Doha
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.