The need of reserving one's ability in job interviewsStrategies for getting work experience to enter workforce when overqualified“Skills didn't meet the requirements for this position”Handling multiple long-distance job interviews in the same areaCatch-22? Need evidence of employment from current employer for visa to attend job interviewsJob Offer with Company A While Having Interviews and Potential Interviews Lined UpIs it typical to be interviewed with another candidate, asked personal questions, and required to debate in a language that won't be used at work?Two interviews at the same company at the same timeContinue with the interviews?Job interviews while working new jobHow to make sure a job will match the job description?Juggling Job Offers and Interviews
Is there a frame of reference in which I was born before I was conceived?
How can I be pwned if I'm not registered on the compromised site?
Being asked to review a paper in conference one has submitted to
Was it really inappropriate to write a pull request for the company I interviewed with?
If nine coins are tossed, what is the probability that the number of heads is even?
How can I handle a player who pre-plans arguments about my rulings on RAW?
Why won't the strings command stop?
Called into a meeting and told we are being made redundant (laid off) and "not to share outside". Can I tell my partner?
Why doesn't "adolescent" take any articles in "listen to adolescent agonising"?
Why would the IRS ask for birth certificates or even audit a small tax return?
Ahoy, Ye Traveler!
Sometimes a banana is just a banana
Wardrobe above a wall with fuse boxes
Script that counts quarters, dimes, nickels, and pennies
Make me a metasequence
Did Amazon pay $0 in taxes last year?
How to disable or uninstall iTunes under High Sierra without disabling SIP
Create chunks from an array
Is there a math equivalent to the conditional ternary operator?
Can an earth elemental drown/bury its opponent underground using earth glide?
How can I conditionally format my HTML table?
School performs periodic password audits. Is my password compromised?
What is better: yes / no radio, or simple checkbox?
How do we objectively assess if a dialogue sounds unnatural or cringy?
The need of reserving one's ability in job interviews
Strategies for getting work experience to enter workforce when overqualified“Skills didn't meet the requirements for this position”Handling multiple long-distance job interviews in the same areaCatch-22? Need evidence of employment from current employer for visa to attend job interviewsJob Offer with Company A While Having Interviews and Potential Interviews Lined UpIs it typical to be interviewed with another candidate, asked personal questions, and required to debate in a language that won't be used at work?Two interviews at the same company at the same timeContinue with the interviews?Job interviews while working new jobHow to make sure a job will match the job description?Juggling Job Offers and Interviews
When interviewing with a company where all the interviewers have lower educational backgrounds from lower ranking schools than the interviewee, should the interviewee appear modest, weaker and reserve (not show off) part of his/her repertoire? The reason behind is that employers might prefer hiring people less or as smart people as they are, or those who don't look too different from themselves. As the saying goes, those who are neither the smartest nor too bad get a job.
interviewing job-search
New contributor
|
show 8 more comments
When interviewing with a company where all the interviewers have lower educational backgrounds from lower ranking schools than the interviewee, should the interviewee appear modest, weaker and reserve (not show off) part of his/her repertoire? The reason behind is that employers might prefer hiring people less or as smart people as they are, or those who don't look too different from themselves. As the saying goes, those who are neither the smartest nor too bad get a job.
interviewing job-search
New contributor
219
You seem to assume that lesser educational background necessarily implies less smart. I got my PhD at age 60, after an industry career.. I don't think I magically became smarter then.
– Patricia Shanahan
yesterday
52
because you say that they 'might prefer hiring people less or as smart people as they are' and by that are implying that because you are from a higher ranked school you are smarter
– Aserre
yesterday
141
Did your highly ranked school teach you about Dunning-Kruger effect?
– mustaccio
yesterday
17
I don't understand why so many people downvote this. It's a kind of OK question. That's the criteria that should be used for voting, not whether or not you completely disagree with the asker. I upvoted it just to counter-balance some of this flawed approach (even though I also completely disagree with its premise).
– Radu Murzea
yesterday
29
Rankings of schools often demonstrates nothing more than the fact that your parents had a lot of money.
– jamesqf
yesterday
|
show 8 more comments
When interviewing with a company where all the interviewers have lower educational backgrounds from lower ranking schools than the interviewee, should the interviewee appear modest, weaker and reserve (not show off) part of his/her repertoire? The reason behind is that employers might prefer hiring people less or as smart people as they are, or those who don't look too different from themselves. As the saying goes, those who are neither the smartest nor too bad get a job.
interviewing job-search
New contributor
When interviewing with a company where all the interviewers have lower educational backgrounds from lower ranking schools than the interviewee, should the interviewee appear modest, weaker and reserve (not show off) part of his/her repertoire? The reason behind is that employers might prefer hiring people less or as smart people as they are, or those who don't look too different from themselves. As the saying goes, those who are neither the smartest nor too bad get a job.
interviewing job-search
interviewing job-search
New contributor
New contributor
edited yesterday
feynman
New contributor
asked 2 days ago
feynmanfeynman
303127
303127
New contributor
New contributor
219
You seem to assume that lesser educational background necessarily implies less smart. I got my PhD at age 60, after an industry career.. I don't think I magically became smarter then.
– Patricia Shanahan
yesterday
52
because you say that they 'might prefer hiring people less or as smart people as they are' and by that are implying that because you are from a higher ranked school you are smarter
– Aserre
yesterday
141
Did your highly ranked school teach you about Dunning-Kruger effect?
– mustaccio
yesterday
17
I don't understand why so many people downvote this. It's a kind of OK question. That's the criteria that should be used for voting, not whether or not you completely disagree with the asker. I upvoted it just to counter-balance some of this flawed approach (even though I also completely disagree with its premise).
– Radu Murzea
yesterday
29
Rankings of schools often demonstrates nothing more than the fact that your parents had a lot of money.
– jamesqf
yesterday
|
show 8 more comments
219
You seem to assume that lesser educational background necessarily implies less smart. I got my PhD at age 60, after an industry career.. I don't think I magically became smarter then.
– Patricia Shanahan
yesterday
52
because you say that they 'might prefer hiring people less or as smart people as they are' and by that are implying that because you are from a higher ranked school you are smarter
– Aserre
yesterday
141
Did your highly ranked school teach you about Dunning-Kruger effect?
– mustaccio
yesterday
17
I don't understand why so many people downvote this. It's a kind of OK question. That's the criteria that should be used for voting, not whether or not you completely disagree with the asker. I upvoted it just to counter-balance some of this flawed approach (even though I also completely disagree with its premise).
– Radu Murzea
yesterday
29
Rankings of schools often demonstrates nothing more than the fact that your parents had a lot of money.
– jamesqf
yesterday
219
219
You seem to assume that lesser educational background necessarily implies less smart. I got my PhD at age 60, after an industry career.. I don't think I magically became smarter then.
– Patricia Shanahan
yesterday
You seem to assume that lesser educational background necessarily implies less smart. I got my PhD at age 60, after an industry career.. I don't think I magically became smarter then.
– Patricia Shanahan
yesterday
52
52
because you say that they 'might prefer hiring people less or as smart people as they are' and by that are implying that because you are from a higher ranked school you are smarter
– Aserre
yesterday
because you say that they 'might prefer hiring people less or as smart people as they are' and by that are implying that because you are from a higher ranked school you are smarter
– Aserre
yesterday
141
141
Did your highly ranked school teach you about Dunning-Kruger effect?
– mustaccio
yesterday
Did your highly ranked school teach you about Dunning-Kruger effect?
– mustaccio
yesterday
17
17
I don't understand why so many people downvote this. It's a kind of OK question. That's the criteria that should be used for voting, not whether or not you completely disagree with the asker. I upvoted it just to counter-balance some of this flawed approach (even though I also completely disagree with its premise).
– Radu Murzea
yesterday
I don't understand why so many people downvote this. It's a kind of OK question. That's the criteria that should be used for voting, not whether or not you completely disagree with the asker. I upvoted it just to counter-balance some of this flawed approach (even though I also completely disagree with its premise).
– Radu Murzea
yesterday
29
29
Rankings of schools often demonstrates nothing more than the fact that your parents had a lot of money.
– jamesqf
yesterday
Rankings of schools often demonstrates nothing more than the fact that your parents had a lot of money.
– jamesqf
yesterday
|
show 8 more comments
12 Answers
12
active
oldest
votes
When interviewing with a company where all the interviewers have lower educational backgrounds from lower ranking schools than the interviewee,
Wait, hang on. While this is a common assumption that reputed schools produce good grades, it does not necessarily imply that the second or third-tier schools are of lower grade. Moreover, it's not only the formal education that matters, there are many proficient engineers you'll meet who are self-taught (up to a very great extent). Some may not have a prestigious alma mater, but they may certainly have brilliant on-job work experience and learning.
The reason behind is that employers might prefer hiring people less or as smart people as they are.
That's almost never true, rather quite the opposite. If I'm hiring someone, I'd expect a smart and capable person, not a "weaker and reserve" one.
To add, don't judge your interviewer by their background - in an interview, always give your best shot.
Note 1:
That said, when you say "all the interviewers have lower educational backgrounds...." - maybe you should be worried about the organization and their work, not the individuals.
Note 2:
Don't make assumptions. In case you feel that you need to underplay your abilities to get a job- ask yourself: "Is it worth it?". Even if you get the job by downplaying your abilities, you can be certain that you will have zero job satisfaction, working in that organization, as you would have to suppress your natural abilities and capabilities and skills to survive also. The scope for your career and personal growth will also be almost non-existent.
So, don't bother about the interviewer's capabilities - they are not under your control. Focus on your capabilities to show the interviewer why you are the "best match" for the requirement they have. Leave the rest to them.
105
+1 The best software engineers that I have worked with over the last 30+ years were (in order) Music, Maths and Chemistry graduates, not forgetting another star who was not a graduate at all. The worst have all been software engineering graduates. YMMV.
– uɐɪ
yesterday
40
It might be worth mentioning that several top tier companies (including Google and Apple) no longer require applicants to even have degrees. Enough experience can get them an interview, at which point they're simply judged by their abilities.
– Lord Farquaad
yesterday
43
@feynman errr... I mean, I can't go unget my degree, but I can tell you I've got a degree from a college you've never heard of, and I got a job with Google on my third try, so.... 33%? I'm not sure why you won't accept that your abilities at present are the main hiring factor when everyone here is telling you that.
– Lord Farquaad
yesterday
17
If you're of high intelligence, you should be able to explain concepts in an interview to people who have less knowledge in those fields. This is a highly regarded talent, to quickly judge whether people understand your concepts and how you can adjust on the fly. I would not hire somebody who could not explain advanced or differing concepts to me.
– Thomas Matthews
yesterday
22
@feynman Doing things like replacing 'you' with 'u', 'with' with 'w' and not using capital letters at the start of sentences are not considered appropriate on this site. In fact these days it's probably not acceptable on most websites, Text-speak has pretty much become antiquated.
– Pharap
21 hours ago
|
show 12 more comments
A good life lesson is, don't make assumptions.
I'm saying this because your question is rife with them:
- You're assuming that you know the educational background of everyone at the table.
- You're assuming that educational background is an indicator of smartness.
- You're assuming that the person who appears the smartest doesn't get the job (your last sentence, which references a saying I've never actually heard).
- You're assuming the interviewer won't want to hire someone who appears smarter than them in the interview.
- You're assuming that you're skilled enough at modesty that you would be able to "hide" your smarts from the interviewers at will, if you so choose.
- You're assuming that "smartness" is an important factor in the interview process (versus, say, skills or the ability to complete tasks for instance).
- You're assuming that the interviewers are all inherently comparing you to themselves (versus, say, comparing you to other candidates or people currently performing that role for the employer).
Regardless of whether each of these are true or not (and I think there are strong arguments that they're pretty much all patently false), the biggest mistake you've made is making so many assumptions in the first place. Every time you make an assumption about an interview, you run the risk of being wrong, and blowing the interview over something that could have been avoided.
When preparing for an interview, you need to be able to show actual worth in terms of performing work. Instead of focusing on the appearance of smartness, focus on the requirements of the job, and your ability to practically show that you have the skills they're looking for.
The good news is, by taking this approach, it's actually easy to prepare for an interview. The employer has given you a template of what they're looking for (the job description), so you don't need to make assumptions. If you go in to an interview ready to show how you match that template, you'll do well.
6
"skills or the ability to complete tasks for instance" - or passion (which may be correlated to how smart you think you are, but less so how smart you actually are).
– Dukeling
yesterday
5
The last two paragraphs are especially important because they give the OP something to focus on instead of educational attainment. Advising someone not to think about X tends to be ineffective. Advising instead thinking about Y is more useful.
– Patricia Shanahan
yesterday
2
It might be worthwhile to further emphasize avoiding focus on "smartness", because in some fields being 'too clever' is a bad thing. Notably, a solution in software that's so clever it's not readable... isn't a good solution. I'd guess this applies elsewhere too.
– Delioth
yesterday
2
@Delioth Some might say writing unreadable code is not very clever at all.
– Dukeling
yesterday
3
"You're assuming that you're skilled enough at modesty that you would be able to "hide" your smarts from the interviewers at will, if you so choose" Would stress this one; since the question strongly suggests otherwise.
– UKMonkey
19 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Here's something you probably haven't realized yet:
1 year in the workforce is equivalent to about 3 years in college. You divide your attention in college. You are given problems that the answers to are already known (unless you're pursuing doctoral / PHD degrees), and there is far less "on the line" than in a real job.
The one advantage "good schools" have is a lifelong network of other graduates that you share a connection with.
That person who's been working 5 years from "Average Joe Tech" knows as much, if not more than any high-end bachelor's degree holder, and he knows more about what is needed in that situation than ANY applicant could possible glean from a job description.
So you go in there with your best shot, but you go in there understanding that they need you to fit the job, and they're not going to make the job fit you.
I've hired good and bad graduates with "top school degrees," but I've also hired a fair number of people with no or unrelated degrees who turned into phenomenal individual contributors.
14
I totally agree with the concept of a year in the workforce being worth more than a year in college, I just think your scale is off in a way. I think I would say a month in the workforce might be worth less than a year of college, but that a year in the workforce could be worth all four years of college, and five years in the workforce is worth more than a lifetime of college. So I suppose if I were to get mathematical about it, I feel like the relationship is perhaps exponential and not linear. I've ignored college completely on resumes that have more than one job listed.
– Todd Wilcox
yesterday
9
I don't agree with that estimate at all. One year in the workforce provides you the skills to deal with problems that you were exposed to. Learning by experience is inductive and usually deep but narrow. With inductive learning every new problem is a new problem. With a university background you already know the general cases and all that comes in your work is just a special case/application that you can pick up pretty fast instead of learning it from scratch. Even 15 years in the workforce will rarely provide you what good education does in 3 years.
– Džuris
yesterday
10
@Džuris - and you are absolutely entitled to hold that opinion. My experiences and assessments would differ.
– Wesley Long
yesterday
4
In my field, the only useful thing people learn from a college degree is how to carry on learning. None of the specifics that you learned amount to much, in practical situations.
– alephzero
yesterday
4
Completely false . 1 year on a good job equals < 1 semester of a good uni (and does not even need to be tops) .. unless the job were exceptional in which case it's closer to even (but still weighted towards school). I'm saying this after 2 decades of experience and then going back to school. What exactly do you do on the job that would make you come up with this? 12 hours a day 365 days a year running and evaluating experiments to complex hypotheses? That sounds like someone preparing their dissertation .. not in a 9-5 job with long coffee breaks.
– javadba
20 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
This question makes assumptions that are worth being picked apart in detail.
First, if the company wanted to hire people stupider than themselves, and believed that the quality of school was a proxy for how smart the applicant is, and that the school on the transcript was a school smart people go to, they wouldn’t have brought the candidate in for an interview in the first place.
Well managed companies typically want to hire people who are smarter/better than the people already working there, because they need people to do work that they cannot already do. If a company wants to hire people who are stupider than the people who work there out of some sort of inadequacy that normal adults grow out of after leaving school, then that is a company you should avoid working for. That would imply acting more smart, rather than less.
But even then, you shouldn’t try to “game” these aspects of interviewing. You don’t know in advance what sort of preferences the interviewers have. You don’t know whether they want smart people or whether they want dumb people out of their own insecurity. You don’t know whether they want people who went to good schools or people who went to bad schools. You don’t know if they’re virtuous or vicious. Because you don’t know these these things, it’s hard to play a game to get them right. It’s hard to pretend.
What you do know, is if you take an offer, you’re going to have to work there for a time long enough that everyone is going to see through your pretending ability. So, don’t waste their time and yours pretending to be something that you are not.
add a comment |
While you don't want to appear arrogant or a "show-off" there's no reason to appear weaker or less intelligent/capable then you actually are.
I always want to hire the best person for the job, regardless of their relative intelligence vis a vis myself, in fact hiring people smarter than yourself is what we call "good management".
add a comment |
The candidate should behave reasonably, regardless of the interviewers.
Think about this: how should Einstein behave during a job interview? Of course, almost everybody on Earth would look stupid by comparison, regardless of University degrees.
By "reasonably" I mean:
- be polite and civilized;
- answer the answers as truthfully as possible, while selling yourself in the best way possible;
- do not boast about yourself;
- let the interviewers deal with what / who they want to hire for the job they have to offer.
good, but who knows how einstein behaved?
– feynman
yesterday
2
@feynman anyone who knew him? He isn't some legendary being, there are still people alive today who met him. (Granted, the number is dwindling rapidly, but still. He died only 65 years ago.)
– Erik
yesterday
1
It is not the point how he actually behaved - he probably did not get interviewed by the companies, but companies were interview by him. The example is related to OP's statement "interviewers have lower educational backgrounds" - in comparison with Einstein, even some real geniuses had lower educational backgrounds.
– virolino
yesterday
add a comment |
Sell yourself as who you are. No more, no less, because your actual credentials will come out during the course of employment. If you misled the people you will be working with, you will not do well on the job.
add a comment |
Copying the manners of the people you are talking to is actually a pretty neat psychological trick to make yourself appear more likeable. People generally like people more when they are similar to them. This is called mirroring. And besides, nobody likes arrogant know-it-alls. Talking in a way which is appropriate to the audience is an important social skill. But keep a few things in mind:
- Using psychological tricks to your advantage raises ethical problems. You are literally manipulating people into liking you.
- They might know that trick and realize you are trying to pull it off, which would be a red flag.
- They might actually be consciously looking for someone who is smarter than they are (or as smart as they think they are). Remember the job description and consider what kind of person they are likely looking for.
- If you have to "play dumb" in the interview in order to get the job, you will have to to "play dump" for the rest of the time you are working there. Do you really want to keep up this charade? Or wouldn't you be more comfortable working for someone who accepts you the way you really are?
add a comment |
Other answers have pointed out that the educational background detail is loaded with naive assumptions, but putting that aside and addressing your core question: Should you purposefully make yourself appear less capable in order to get hired somewhere where you suspect your hiring manager(s) won't hire somebody more capable than they are?
Unless you have a really compelling reason to want to get hired for this particular organisation / role, if you suspect this is the case you're better off walking away.
Managers not hiring people more capable than them is a huge red flag that the team / organisation's culture is not a good one. Both your immediate day-to-day and longer term career growth prospects will likely be much worse in such a culture than in one where managers are simply looking to hire the best people they can find, at all levels.
If you are confident in your abilities, as you seem to be, you likely have other, better options. If you even have to ask this question going into an interview, it's a signal you should just decline it and look elsewhere.
add a comment |
There is much here already for the OP to reflect on about the true value of degrees, and more importantly how other people view them.
But I can tell you one thing for sure: I wouldn't hire someone who flounced into an interview to show off. At work, arrogance is a real hindrance. As mustaccio pointed out so aptly in the comments, the Dunning-Kruger effect is not a good thing to be dealing with.
add a comment |
I agree that employers might prefer hiring people less or as smart people as they are.
I think that the answer depends on what really you want.
Are you over-educated for that job? And, despite this, do you really want that job?
I have been in this situation, and I tried to reserve part of my repertoire. But, after getting the job, I recognized the mismatch. The employer also recognized the mismatch. And I had to find a new job. After making the same error twice, now I am in a position when my reportoire is appreciated in full.
To sum up: if you reserve your repertoire maybe you get the work. But it won't last.
2
"Might" is an important word in your first sentence. And, even if it's true for a specific employer, it begs a question, which I think you have answered well: do you really want to "fake" the interview in order to get a job, for an employer where you won't be a good fit? Or should you be honest and then be happy about not getting a job where you might not have fit well?
– dwizum
yesterday
@user3664452 having ur reportoire appreciated in full is difficult unless in academia. luckily u got it. i agree with u. sometimes one just needs a job
– feynman
22 hours ago
add a comment |
From personal experience, I can recommend not downplaying your abilities - but definitely downplaying the "education" part. In many fields, the degree itself isn't particularly valuable, but the skills you developed while studying can be valuable.
I completed an M.S. in the social sciences. My work focused on computer simulation of social activities, so I had pretty solid quantitative skills and reasonable programming skills. My first job after college was in advertising. In my organization the only other person with a graduate degree was the CEO, who had an MBA. Some other high-ranking people had bachelors degrees, but many (if not most) people had no degree at all.
Having a degree, and the reputation of your school, will largely not be impressive. Instead focus on your skills. For me, this meant discussing how well I understood social behavior (which is important in advertising), quantitative skills, and technical skills. Don't focus on theory. Don't talk about your intelligence or education. Tell them what you can do for them.
One last piece of advice: don't suppose that you have any significant advantage over other staff because of your education. Many of those people have a lifetime of experience in their field and are incredibly talented. You do contribute a different skill set, which also brings value.
its interesting u do quant work after an MS in social sciences
– feynman
22 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "423"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: false,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
feynman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f130842%2fthe-need-of-reserving-ones-ability-in-job-interviews%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(function ()
$("#show-editor-button input, #show-editor-button button").click(function ()
var showEditor = function()
$("#show-editor-button").hide();
$("#post-form").removeClass("dno");
StackExchange.editor.finallyInit();
;
var useFancy = $(this).data('confirm-use-fancy');
if(useFancy == 'True')
var popupTitle = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-title');
var popupBody = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-body');
var popupAccept = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-accept-button');
$(this).loadPopup(
url: '/post/self-answer-popup',
loaded: function(popup)
var pTitle = $(popup).find('h2');
var pBody = $(popup).find('.popup-body');
var pSubmit = $(popup).find('.popup-submit');
pTitle.text(popupTitle);
pBody.html(popupBody);
pSubmit.val(popupAccept).click(showEditor);
)
else
var confirmText = $(this).data('confirm-text');
if (confirmText ? confirm(confirmText) : true)
showEditor();
);
);
12 Answers
12
active
oldest
votes
12 Answers
12
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
When interviewing with a company where all the interviewers have lower educational backgrounds from lower ranking schools than the interviewee,
Wait, hang on. While this is a common assumption that reputed schools produce good grades, it does not necessarily imply that the second or third-tier schools are of lower grade. Moreover, it's not only the formal education that matters, there are many proficient engineers you'll meet who are self-taught (up to a very great extent). Some may not have a prestigious alma mater, but they may certainly have brilliant on-job work experience and learning.
The reason behind is that employers might prefer hiring people less or as smart people as they are.
That's almost never true, rather quite the opposite. If I'm hiring someone, I'd expect a smart and capable person, not a "weaker and reserve" one.
To add, don't judge your interviewer by their background - in an interview, always give your best shot.
Note 1:
That said, when you say "all the interviewers have lower educational backgrounds...." - maybe you should be worried about the organization and their work, not the individuals.
Note 2:
Don't make assumptions. In case you feel that you need to underplay your abilities to get a job- ask yourself: "Is it worth it?". Even if you get the job by downplaying your abilities, you can be certain that you will have zero job satisfaction, working in that organization, as you would have to suppress your natural abilities and capabilities and skills to survive also. The scope for your career and personal growth will also be almost non-existent.
So, don't bother about the interviewer's capabilities - they are not under your control. Focus on your capabilities to show the interviewer why you are the "best match" for the requirement they have. Leave the rest to them.
105
+1 The best software engineers that I have worked with over the last 30+ years were (in order) Music, Maths and Chemistry graduates, not forgetting another star who was not a graduate at all. The worst have all been software engineering graduates. YMMV.
– uɐɪ
yesterday
40
It might be worth mentioning that several top tier companies (including Google and Apple) no longer require applicants to even have degrees. Enough experience can get them an interview, at which point they're simply judged by their abilities.
– Lord Farquaad
yesterday
43
@feynman errr... I mean, I can't go unget my degree, but I can tell you I've got a degree from a college you've never heard of, and I got a job with Google on my third try, so.... 33%? I'm not sure why you won't accept that your abilities at present are the main hiring factor when everyone here is telling you that.
– Lord Farquaad
yesterday
17
If you're of high intelligence, you should be able to explain concepts in an interview to people who have less knowledge in those fields. This is a highly regarded talent, to quickly judge whether people understand your concepts and how you can adjust on the fly. I would not hire somebody who could not explain advanced or differing concepts to me.
– Thomas Matthews
yesterday
22
@feynman Doing things like replacing 'you' with 'u', 'with' with 'w' and not using capital letters at the start of sentences are not considered appropriate on this site. In fact these days it's probably not acceptable on most websites, Text-speak has pretty much become antiquated.
– Pharap
21 hours ago
|
show 12 more comments
When interviewing with a company where all the interviewers have lower educational backgrounds from lower ranking schools than the interviewee,
Wait, hang on. While this is a common assumption that reputed schools produce good grades, it does not necessarily imply that the second or third-tier schools are of lower grade. Moreover, it's not only the formal education that matters, there are many proficient engineers you'll meet who are self-taught (up to a very great extent). Some may not have a prestigious alma mater, but they may certainly have brilliant on-job work experience and learning.
The reason behind is that employers might prefer hiring people less or as smart people as they are.
That's almost never true, rather quite the opposite. If I'm hiring someone, I'd expect a smart and capable person, not a "weaker and reserve" one.
To add, don't judge your interviewer by their background - in an interview, always give your best shot.
Note 1:
That said, when you say "all the interviewers have lower educational backgrounds...." - maybe you should be worried about the organization and their work, not the individuals.
Note 2:
Don't make assumptions. In case you feel that you need to underplay your abilities to get a job- ask yourself: "Is it worth it?". Even if you get the job by downplaying your abilities, you can be certain that you will have zero job satisfaction, working in that organization, as you would have to suppress your natural abilities and capabilities and skills to survive also. The scope for your career and personal growth will also be almost non-existent.
So, don't bother about the interviewer's capabilities - they are not under your control. Focus on your capabilities to show the interviewer why you are the "best match" for the requirement they have. Leave the rest to them.
105
+1 The best software engineers that I have worked with over the last 30+ years were (in order) Music, Maths and Chemistry graduates, not forgetting another star who was not a graduate at all. The worst have all been software engineering graduates. YMMV.
– uɐɪ
yesterday
40
It might be worth mentioning that several top tier companies (including Google and Apple) no longer require applicants to even have degrees. Enough experience can get them an interview, at which point they're simply judged by their abilities.
– Lord Farquaad
yesterday
43
@feynman errr... I mean, I can't go unget my degree, but I can tell you I've got a degree from a college you've never heard of, and I got a job with Google on my third try, so.... 33%? I'm not sure why you won't accept that your abilities at present are the main hiring factor when everyone here is telling you that.
– Lord Farquaad
yesterday
17
If you're of high intelligence, you should be able to explain concepts in an interview to people who have less knowledge in those fields. This is a highly regarded talent, to quickly judge whether people understand your concepts and how you can adjust on the fly. I would not hire somebody who could not explain advanced or differing concepts to me.
– Thomas Matthews
yesterday
22
@feynman Doing things like replacing 'you' with 'u', 'with' with 'w' and not using capital letters at the start of sentences are not considered appropriate on this site. In fact these days it's probably not acceptable on most websites, Text-speak has pretty much become antiquated.
– Pharap
21 hours ago
|
show 12 more comments
When interviewing with a company where all the interviewers have lower educational backgrounds from lower ranking schools than the interviewee,
Wait, hang on. While this is a common assumption that reputed schools produce good grades, it does not necessarily imply that the second or third-tier schools are of lower grade. Moreover, it's not only the formal education that matters, there are many proficient engineers you'll meet who are self-taught (up to a very great extent). Some may not have a prestigious alma mater, but they may certainly have brilliant on-job work experience and learning.
The reason behind is that employers might prefer hiring people less or as smart people as they are.
That's almost never true, rather quite the opposite. If I'm hiring someone, I'd expect a smart and capable person, not a "weaker and reserve" one.
To add, don't judge your interviewer by their background - in an interview, always give your best shot.
Note 1:
That said, when you say "all the interviewers have lower educational backgrounds...." - maybe you should be worried about the organization and their work, not the individuals.
Note 2:
Don't make assumptions. In case you feel that you need to underplay your abilities to get a job- ask yourself: "Is it worth it?". Even if you get the job by downplaying your abilities, you can be certain that you will have zero job satisfaction, working in that organization, as you would have to suppress your natural abilities and capabilities and skills to survive also. The scope for your career and personal growth will also be almost non-existent.
So, don't bother about the interviewer's capabilities - they are not under your control. Focus on your capabilities to show the interviewer why you are the "best match" for the requirement they have. Leave the rest to them.
When interviewing with a company where all the interviewers have lower educational backgrounds from lower ranking schools than the interviewee,
Wait, hang on. While this is a common assumption that reputed schools produce good grades, it does not necessarily imply that the second or third-tier schools are of lower grade. Moreover, it's not only the formal education that matters, there are many proficient engineers you'll meet who are self-taught (up to a very great extent). Some may not have a prestigious alma mater, but they may certainly have brilliant on-job work experience and learning.
The reason behind is that employers might prefer hiring people less or as smart people as they are.
That's almost never true, rather quite the opposite. If I'm hiring someone, I'd expect a smart and capable person, not a "weaker and reserve" one.
To add, don't judge your interviewer by their background - in an interview, always give your best shot.
Note 1:
That said, when you say "all the interviewers have lower educational backgrounds...." - maybe you should be worried about the organization and their work, not the individuals.
Note 2:
Don't make assumptions. In case you feel that you need to underplay your abilities to get a job- ask yourself: "Is it worth it?". Even if you get the job by downplaying your abilities, you can be certain that you will have zero job satisfaction, working in that organization, as you would have to suppress your natural abilities and capabilities and skills to survive also. The scope for your career and personal growth will also be almost non-existent.
So, don't bother about the interviewer's capabilities - they are not under your control. Focus on your capabilities to show the interviewer why you are the "best match" for the requirement they have. Leave the rest to them.
edited yesterday
answered 2 days ago
Sourav GhoshSourav Ghosh
4,00321733
4,00321733
105
+1 The best software engineers that I have worked with over the last 30+ years were (in order) Music, Maths and Chemistry graduates, not forgetting another star who was not a graduate at all. The worst have all been software engineering graduates. YMMV.
– uɐɪ
yesterday
40
It might be worth mentioning that several top tier companies (including Google and Apple) no longer require applicants to even have degrees. Enough experience can get them an interview, at which point they're simply judged by their abilities.
– Lord Farquaad
yesterday
43
@feynman errr... I mean, I can't go unget my degree, but I can tell you I've got a degree from a college you've never heard of, and I got a job with Google on my third try, so.... 33%? I'm not sure why you won't accept that your abilities at present are the main hiring factor when everyone here is telling you that.
– Lord Farquaad
yesterday
17
If you're of high intelligence, you should be able to explain concepts in an interview to people who have less knowledge in those fields. This is a highly regarded talent, to quickly judge whether people understand your concepts and how you can adjust on the fly. I would not hire somebody who could not explain advanced or differing concepts to me.
– Thomas Matthews
yesterday
22
@feynman Doing things like replacing 'you' with 'u', 'with' with 'w' and not using capital letters at the start of sentences are not considered appropriate on this site. In fact these days it's probably not acceptable on most websites, Text-speak has pretty much become antiquated.
– Pharap
21 hours ago
|
show 12 more comments
105
+1 The best software engineers that I have worked with over the last 30+ years were (in order) Music, Maths and Chemistry graduates, not forgetting another star who was not a graduate at all. The worst have all been software engineering graduates. YMMV.
– uɐɪ
yesterday
40
It might be worth mentioning that several top tier companies (including Google and Apple) no longer require applicants to even have degrees. Enough experience can get them an interview, at which point they're simply judged by their abilities.
– Lord Farquaad
yesterday
43
@feynman errr... I mean, I can't go unget my degree, but I can tell you I've got a degree from a college you've never heard of, and I got a job with Google on my third try, so.... 33%? I'm not sure why you won't accept that your abilities at present are the main hiring factor when everyone here is telling you that.
– Lord Farquaad
yesterday
17
If you're of high intelligence, you should be able to explain concepts in an interview to people who have less knowledge in those fields. This is a highly regarded talent, to quickly judge whether people understand your concepts and how you can adjust on the fly. I would not hire somebody who could not explain advanced or differing concepts to me.
– Thomas Matthews
yesterday
22
@feynman Doing things like replacing 'you' with 'u', 'with' with 'w' and not using capital letters at the start of sentences are not considered appropriate on this site. In fact these days it's probably not acceptable on most websites, Text-speak has pretty much become antiquated.
– Pharap
21 hours ago
105
105
+1 The best software engineers that I have worked with over the last 30+ years were (in order) Music, Maths and Chemistry graduates, not forgetting another star who was not a graduate at all. The worst have all been software engineering graduates. YMMV.
– uɐɪ
yesterday
+1 The best software engineers that I have worked with over the last 30+ years were (in order) Music, Maths and Chemistry graduates, not forgetting another star who was not a graduate at all. The worst have all been software engineering graduates. YMMV.
– uɐɪ
yesterday
40
40
It might be worth mentioning that several top tier companies (including Google and Apple) no longer require applicants to even have degrees. Enough experience can get them an interview, at which point they're simply judged by their abilities.
– Lord Farquaad
yesterday
It might be worth mentioning that several top tier companies (including Google and Apple) no longer require applicants to even have degrees. Enough experience can get them an interview, at which point they're simply judged by their abilities.
– Lord Farquaad
yesterday
43
43
@feynman errr... I mean, I can't go unget my degree, but I can tell you I've got a degree from a college you've never heard of, and I got a job with Google on my third try, so.... 33%? I'm not sure why you won't accept that your abilities at present are the main hiring factor when everyone here is telling you that.
– Lord Farquaad
yesterday
@feynman errr... I mean, I can't go unget my degree, but I can tell you I've got a degree from a college you've never heard of, and I got a job with Google on my third try, so.... 33%? I'm not sure why you won't accept that your abilities at present are the main hiring factor when everyone here is telling you that.
– Lord Farquaad
yesterday
17
17
If you're of high intelligence, you should be able to explain concepts in an interview to people who have less knowledge in those fields. This is a highly regarded talent, to quickly judge whether people understand your concepts and how you can adjust on the fly. I would not hire somebody who could not explain advanced or differing concepts to me.
– Thomas Matthews
yesterday
If you're of high intelligence, you should be able to explain concepts in an interview to people who have less knowledge in those fields. This is a highly regarded talent, to quickly judge whether people understand your concepts and how you can adjust on the fly. I would not hire somebody who could not explain advanced or differing concepts to me.
– Thomas Matthews
yesterday
22
22
@feynman Doing things like replacing 'you' with 'u', 'with' with 'w' and not using capital letters at the start of sentences are not considered appropriate on this site. In fact these days it's probably not acceptable on most websites, Text-speak has pretty much become antiquated.
– Pharap
21 hours ago
@feynman Doing things like replacing 'you' with 'u', 'with' with 'w' and not using capital letters at the start of sentences are not considered appropriate on this site. In fact these days it's probably not acceptable on most websites, Text-speak has pretty much become antiquated.
– Pharap
21 hours ago
|
show 12 more comments
A good life lesson is, don't make assumptions.
I'm saying this because your question is rife with them:
- You're assuming that you know the educational background of everyone at the table.
- You're assuming that educational background is an indicator of smartness.
- You're assuming that the person who appears the smartest doesn't get the job (your last sentence, which references a saying I've never actually heard).
- You're assuming the interviewer won't want to hire someone who appears smarter than them in the interview.
- You're assuming that you're skilled enough at modesty that you would be able to "hide" your smarts from the interviewers at will, if you so choose.
- You're assuming that "smartness" is an important factor in the interview process (versus, say, skills or the ability to complete tasks for instance).
- You're assuming that the interviewers are all inherently comparing you to themselves (versus, say, comparing you to other candidates or people currently performing that role for the employer).
Regardless of whether each of these are true or not (and I think there are strong arguments that they're pretty much all patently false), the biggest mistake you've made is making so many assumptions in the first place. Every time you make an assumption about an interview, you run the risk of being wrong, and blowing the interview over something that could have been avoided.
When preparing for an interview, you need to be able to show actual worth in terms of performing work. Instead of focusing on the appearance of smartness, focus on the requirements of the job, and your ability to practically show that you have the skills they're looking for.
The good news is, by taking this approach, it's actually easy to prepare for an interview. The employer has given you a template of what they're looking for (the job description), so you don't need to make assumptions. If you go in to an interview ready to show how you match that template, you'll do well.
6
"skills or the ability to complete tasks for instance" - or passion (which may be correlated to how smart you think you are, but less so how smart you actually are).
– Dukeling
yesterday
5
The last two paragraphs are especially important because they give the OP something to focus on instead of educational attainment. Advising someone not to think about X tends to be ineffective. Advising instead thinking about Y is more useful.
– Patricia Shanahan
yesterday
2
It might be worthwhile to further emphasize avoiding focus on "smartness", because in some fields being 'too clever' is a bad thing. Notably, a solution in software that's so clever it's not readable... isn't a good solution. I'd guess this applies elsewhere too.
– Delioth
yesterday
2
@Delioth Some might say writing unreadable code is not very clever at all.
– Dukeling
yesterday
3
"You're assuming that you're skilled enough at modesty that you would be able to "hide" your smarts from the interviewers at will, if you so choose" Would stress this one; since the question strongly suggests otherwise.
– UKMonkey
19 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
A good life lesson is, don't make assumptions.
I'm saying this because your question is rife with them:
- You're assuming that you know the educational background of everyone at the table.
- You're assuming that educational background is an indicator of smartness.
- You're assuming that the person who appears the smartest doesn't get the job (your last sentence, which references a saying I've never actually heard).
- You're assuming the interviewer won't want to hire someone who appears smarter than them in the interview.
- You're assuming that you're skilled enough at modesty that you would be able to "hide" your smarts from the interviewers at will, if you so choose.
- You're assuming that "smartness" is an important factor in the interview process (versus, say, skills or the ability to complete tasks for instance).
- You're assuming that the interviewers are all inherently comparing you to themselves (versus, say, comparing you to other candidates or people currently performing that role for the employer).
Regardless of whether each of these are true or not (and I think there are strong arguments that they're pretty much all patently false), the biggest mistake you've made is making so many assumptions in the first place. Every time you make an assumption about an interview, you run the risk of being wrong, and blowing the interview over something that could have been avoided.
When preparing for an interview, you need to be able to show actual worth in terms of performing work. Instead of focusing on the appearance of smartness, focus on the requirements of the job, and your ability to practically show that you have the skills they're looking for.
The good news is, by taking this approach, it's actually easy to prepare for an interview. The employer has given you a template of what they're looking for (the job description), so you don't need to make assumptions. If you go in to an interview ready to show how you match that template, you'll do well.
6
"skills or the ability to complete tasks for instance" - or passion (which may be correlated to how smart you think you are, but less so how smart you actually are).
– Dukeling
yesterday
5
The last two paragraphs are especially important because they give the OP something to focus on instead of educational attainment. Advising someone not to think about X tends to be ineffective. Advising instead thinking about Y is more useful.
– Patricia Shanahan
yesterday
2
It might be worthwhile to further emphasize avoiding focus on "smartness", because in some fields being 'too clever' is a bad thing. Notably, a solution in software that's so clever it's not readable... isn't a good solution. I'd guess this applies elsewhere too.
– Delioth
yesterday
2
@Delioth Some might say writing unreadable code is not very clever at all.
– Dukeling
yesterday
3
"You're assuming that you're skilled enough at modesty that you would be able to "hide" your smarts from the interviewers at will, if you so choose" Would stress this one; since the question strongly suggests otherwise.
– UKMonkey
19 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
A good life lesson is, don't make assumptions.
I'm saying this because your question is rife with them:
- You're assuming that you know the educational background of everyone at the table.
- You're assuming that educational background is an indicator of smartness.
- You're assuming that the person who appears the smartest doesn't get the job (your last sentence, which references a saying I've never actually heard).
- You're assuming the interviewer won't want to hire someone who appears smarter than them in the interview.
- You're assuming that you're skilled enough at modesty that you would be able to "hide" your smarts from the interviewers at will, if you so choose.
- You're assuming that "smartness" is an important factor in the interview process (versus, say, skills or the ability to complete tasks for instance).
- You're assuming that the interviewers are all inherently comparing you to themselves (versus, say, comparing you to other candidates or people currently performing that role for the employer).
Regardless of whether each of these are true or not (and I think there are strong arguments that they're pretty much all patently false), the biggest mistake you've made is making so many assumptions in the first place. Every time you make an assumption about an interview, you run the risk of being wrong, and blowing the interview over something that could have been avoided.
When preparing for an interview, you need to be able to show actual worth in terms of performing work. Instead of focusing on the appearance of smartness, focus on the requirements of the job, and your ability to practically show that you have the skills they're looking for.
The good news is, by taking this approach, it's actually easy to prepare for an interview. The employer has given you a template of what they're looking for (the job description), so you don't need to make assumptions. If you go in to an interview ready to show how you match that template, you'll do well.
A good life lesson is, don't make assumptions.
I'm saying this because your question is rife with them:
- You're assuming that you know the educational background of everyone at the table.
- You're assuming that educational background is an indicator of smartness.
- You're assuming that the person who appears the smartest doesn't get the job (your last sentence, which references a saying I've never actually heard).
- You're assuming the interviewer won't want to hire someone who appears smarter than them in the interview.
- You're assuming that you're skilled enough at modesty that you would be able to "hide" your smarts from the interviewers at will, if you so choose.
- You're assuming that "smartness" is an important factor in the interview process (versus, say, skills or the ability to complete tasks for instance).
- You're assuming that the interviewers are all inherently comparing you to themselves (versus, say, comparing you to other candidates or people currently performing that role for the employer).
Regardless of whether each of these are true or not (and I think there are strong arguments that they're pretty much all patently false), the biggest mistake you've made is making so many assumptions in the first place. Every time you make an assumption about an interview, you run the risk of being wrong, and blowing the interview over something that could have been avoided.
When preparing for an interview, you need to be able to show actual worth in terms of performing work. Instead of focusing on the appearance of smartness, focus on the requirements of the job, and your ability to practically show that you have the skills they're looking for.
The good news is, by taking this approach, it's actually easy to prepare for an interview. The employer has given you a template of what they're looking for (the job description), so you don't need to make assumptions. If you go in to an interview ready to show how you match that template, you'll do well.
answered yesterday
dwizumdwizum
16.8k93456
16.8k93456
6
"skills or the ability to complete tasks for instance" - or passion (which may be correlated to how smart you think you are, but less so how smart you actually are).
– Dukeling
yesterday
5
The last two paragraphs are especially important because they give the OP something to focus on instead of educational attainment. Advising someone not to think about X tends to be ineffective. Advising instead thinking about Y is more useful.
– Patricia Shanahan
yesterday
2
It might be worthwhile to further emphasize avoiding focus on "smartness", because in some fields being 'too clever' is a bad thing. Notably, a solution in software that's so clever it's not readable... isn't a good solution. I'd guess this applies elsewhere too.
– Delioth
yesterday
2
@Delioth Some might say writing unreadable code is not very clever at all.
– Dukeling
yesterday
3
"You're assuming that you're skilled enough at modesty that you would be able to "hide" your smarts from the interviewers at will, if you so choose" Would stress this one; since the question strongly suggests otherwise.
– UKMonkey
19 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
6
"skills or the ability to complete tasks for instance" - or passion (which may be correlated to how smart you think you are, but less so how smart you actually are).
– Dukeling
yesterday
5
The last two paragraphs are especially important because they give the OP something to focus on instead of educational attainment. Advising someone not to think about X tends to be ineffective. Advising instead thinking about Y is more useful.
– Patricia Shanahan
yesterday
2
It might be worthwhile to further emphasize avoiding focus on "smartness", because in some fields being 'too clever' is a bad thing. Notably, a solution in software that's so clever it's not readable... isn't a good solution. I'd guess this applies elsewhere too.
– Delioth
yesterday
2
@Delioth Some might say writing unreadable code is not very clever at all.
– Dukeling
yesterday
3
"You're assuming that you're skilled enough at modesty that you would be able to "hide" your smarts from the interviewers at will, if you so choose" Would stress this one; since the question strongly suggests otherwise.
– UKMonkey
19 hours ago
6
6
"skills or the ability to complete tasks for instance" - or passion (which may be correlated to how smart you think you are, but less so how smart you actually are).
– Dukeling
yesterday
"skills or the ability to complete tasks for instance" - or passion (which may be correlated to how smart you think you are, but less so how smart you actually are).
– Dukeling
yesterday
5
5
The last two paragraphs are especially important because they give the OP something to focus on instead of educational attainment. Advising someone not to think about X tends to be ineffective. Advising instead thinking about Y is more useful.
– Patricia Shanahan
yesterday
The last two paragraphs are especially important because they give the OP something to focus on instead of educational attainment. Advising someone not to think about X tends to be ineffective. Advising instead thinking about Y is more useful.
– Patricia Shanahan
yesterday
2
2
It might be worthwhile to further emphasize avoiding focus on "smartness", because in some fields being 'too clever' is a bad thing. Notably, a solution in software that's so clever it's not readable... isn't a good solution. I'd guess this applies elsewhere too.
– Delioth
yesterday
It might be worthwhile to further emphasize avoiding focus on "smartness", because in some fields being 'too clever' is a bad thing. Notably, a solution in software that's so clever it's not readable... isn't a good solution. I'd guess this applies elsewhere too.
– Delioth
yesterday
2
2
@Delioth Some might say writing unreadable code is not very clever at all.
– Dukeling
yesterday
@Delioth Some might say writing unreadable code is not very clever at all.
– Dukeling
yesterday
3
3
"You're assuming that you're skilled enough at modesty that you would be able to "hide" your smarts from the interviewers at will, if you so choose" Would stress this one; since the question strongly suggests otherwise.
– UKMonkey
19 hours ago
"You're assuming that you're skilled enough at modesty that you would be able to "hide" your smarts from the interviewers at will, if you so choose" Would stress this one; since the question strongly suggests otherwise.
– UKMonkey
19 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Here's something you probably haven't realized yet:
1 year in the workforce is equivalent to about 3 years in college. You divide your attention in college. You are given problems that the answers to are already known (unless you're pursuing doctoral / PHD degrees), and there is far less "on the line" than in a real job.
The one advantage "good schools" have is a lifelong network of other graduates that you share a connection with.
That person who's been working 5 years from "Average Joe Tech" knows as much, if not more than any high-end bachelor's degree holder, and he knows more about what is needed in that situation than ANY applicant could possible glean from a job description.
So you go in there with your best shot, but you go in there understanding that they need you to fit the job, and they're not going to make the job fit you.
I've hired good and bad graduates with "top school degrees," but I've also hired a fair number of people with no or unrelated degrees who turned into phenomenal individual contributors.
14
I totally agree with the concept of a year in the workforce being worth more than a year in college, I just think your scale is off in a way. I think I would say a month in the workforce might be worth less than a year of college, but that a year in the workforce could be worth all four years of college, and five years in the workforce is worth more than a lifetime of college. So I suppose if I were to get mathematical about it, I feel like the relationship is perhaps exponential and not linear. I've ignored college completely on resumes that have more than one job listed.
– Todd Wilcox
yesterday
9
I don't agree with that estimate at all. One year in the workforce provides you the skills to deal with problems that you were exposed to. Learning by experience is inductive and usually deep but narrow. With inductive learning every new problem is a new problem. With a university background you already know the general cases and all that comes in your work is just a special case/application that you can pick up pretty fast instead of learning it from scratch. Even 15 years in the workforce will rarely provide you what good education does in 3 years.
– Džuris
yesterday
10
@Džuris - and you are absolutely entitled to hold that opinion. My experiences and assessments would differ.
– Wesley Long
yesterday
4
In my field, the only useful thing people learn from a college degree is how to carry on learning. None of the specifics that you learned amount to much, in practical situations.
– alephzero
yesterday
4
Completely false . 1 year on a good job equals < 1 semester of a good uni (and does not even need to be tops) .. unless the job were exceptional in which case it's closer to even (but still weighted towards school). I'm saying this after 2 decades of experience and then going back to school. What exactly do you do on the job that would make you come up with this? 12 hours a day 365 days a year running and evaluating experiments to complex hypotheses? That sounds like someone preparing their dissertation .. not in a 9-5 job with long coffee breaks.
– javadba
20 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Here's something you probably haven't realized yet:
1 year in the workforce is equivalent to about 3 years in college. You divide your attention in college. You are given problems that the answers to are already known (unless you're pursuing doctoral / PHD degrees), and there is far less "on the line" than in a real job.
The one advantage "good schools" have is a lifelong network of other graduates that you share a connection with.
That person who's been working 5 years from "Average Joe Tech" knows as much, if not more than any high-end bachelor's degree holder, and he knows more about what is needed in that situation than ANY applicant could possible glean from a job description.
So you go in there with your best shot, but you go in there understanding that they need you to fit the job, and they're not going to make the job fit you.
I've hired good and bad graduates with "top school degrees," but I've also hired a fair number of people with no or unrelated degrees who turned into phenomenal individual contributors.
14
I totally agree with the concept of a year in the workforce being worth more than a year in college, I just think your scale is off in a way. I think I would say a month in the workforce might be worth less than a year of college, but that a year in the workforce could be worth all four years of college, and five years in the workforce is worth more than a lifetime of college. So I suppose if I were to get mathematical about it, I feel like the relationship is perhaps exponential and not linear. I've ignored college completely on resumes that have more than one job listed.
– Todd Wilcox
yesterday
9
I don't agree with that estimate at all. One year in the workforce provides you the skills to deal with problems that you were exposed to. Learning by experience is inductive and usually deep but narrow. With inductive learning every new problem is a new problem. With a university background you already know the general cases and all that comes in your work is just a special case/application that you can pick up pretty fast instead of learning it from scratch. Even 15 years in the workforce will rarely provide you what good education does in 3 years.
– Džuris
yesterday
10
@Džuris - and you are absolutely entitled to hold that opinion. My experiences and assessments would differ.
– Wesley Long
yesterday
4
In my field, the only useful thing people learn from a college degree is how to carry on learning. None of the specifics that you learned amount to much, in practical situations.
– alephzero
yesterday
4
Completely false . 1 year on a good job equals < 1 semester of a good uni (and does not even need to be tops) .. unless the job were exceptional in which case it's closer to even (but still weighted towards school). I'm saying this after 2 decades of experience and then going back to school. What exactly do you do on the job that would make you come up with this? 12 hours a day 365 days a year running and evaluating experiments to complex hypotheses? That sounds like someone preparing their dissertation .. not in a 9-5 job with long coffee breaks.
– javadba
20 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Here's something you probably haven't realized yet:
1 year in the workforce is equivalent to about 3 years in college. You divide your attention in college. You are given problems that the answers to are already known (unless you're pursuing doctoral / PHD degrees), and there is far less "on the line" than in a real job.
The one advantage "good schools" have is a lifelong network of other graduates that you share a connection with.
That person who's been working 5 years from "Average Joe Tech" knows as much, if not more than any high-end bachelor's degree holder, and he knows more about what is needed in that situation than ANY applicant could possible glean from a job description.
So you go in there with your best shot, but you go in there understanding that they need you to fit the job, and they're not going to make the job fit you.
I've hired good and bad graduates with "top school degrees," but I've also hired a fair number of people with no or unrelated degrees who turned into phenomenal individual contributors.
Here's something you probably haven't realized yet:
1 year in the workforce is equivalent to about 3 years in college. You divide your attention in college. You are given problems that the answers to are already known (unless you're pursuing doctoral / PHD degrees), and there is far less "on the line" than in a real job.
The one advantage "good schools" have is a lifelong network of other graduates that you share a connection with.
That person who's been working 5 years from "Average Joe Tech" knows as much, if not more than any high-end bachelor's degree holder, and he knows more about what is needed in that situation than ANY applicant could possible glean from a job description.
So you go in there with your best shot, but you go in there understanding that they need you to fit the job, and they're not going to make the job fit you.
I've hired good and bad graduates with "top school degrees," but I've also hired a fair number of people with no or unrelated degrees who turned into phenomenal individual contributors.
answered yesterday
Wesley LongWesley Long
50.3k17109182
50.3k17109182
14
I totally agree with the concept of a year in the workforce being worth more than a year in college, I just think your scale is off in a way. I think I would say a month in the workforce might be worth less than a year of college, but that a year in the workforce could be worth all four years of college, and five years in the workforce is worth more than a lifetime of college. So I suppose if I were to get mathematical about it, I feel like the relationship is perhaps exponential and not linear. I've ignored college completely on resumes that have more than one job listed.
– Todd Wilcox
yesterday
9
I don't agree with that estimate at all. One year in the workforce provides you the skills to deal with problems that you were exposed to. Learning by experience is inductive and usually deep but narrow. With inductive learning every new problem is a new problem. With a university background you already know the general cases and all that comes in your work is just a special case/application that you can pick up pretty fast instead of learning it from scratch. Even 15 years in the workforce will rarely provide you what good education does in 3 years.
– Džuris
yesterday
10
@Džuris - and you are absolutely entitled to hold that opinion. My experiences and assessments would differ.
– Wesley Long
yesterday
4
In my field, the only useful thing people learn from a college degree is how to carry on learning. None of the specifics that you learned amount to much, in practical situations.
– alephzero
yesterday
4
Completely false . 1 year on a good job equals < 1 semester of a good uni (and does not even need to be tops) .. unless the job were exceptional in which case it's closer to even (but still weighted towards school). I'm saying this after 2 decades of experience and then going back to school. What exactly do you do on the job that would make you come up with this? 12 hours a day 365 days a year running and evaluating experiments to complex hypotheses? That sounds like someone preparing their dissertation .. not in a 9-5 job with long coffee breaks.
– javadba
20 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
14
I totally agree with the concept of a year in the workforce being worth more than a year in college, I just think your scale is off in a way. I think I would say a month in the workforce might be worth less than a year of college, but that a year in the workforce could be worth all four years of college, and five years in the workforce is worth more than a lifetime of college. So I suppose if I were to get mathematical about it, I feel like the relationship is perhaps exponential and not linear. I've ignored college completely on resumes that have more than one job listed.
– Todd Wilcox
yesterday
9
I don't agree with that estimate at all. One year in the workforce provides you the skills to deal with problems that you were exposed to. Learning by experience is inductive and usually deep but narrow. With inductive learning every new problem is a new problem. With a university background you already know the general cases and all that comes in your work is just a special case/application that you can pick up pretty fast instead of learning it from scratch. Even 15 years in the workforce will rarely provide you what good education does in 3 years.
– Džuris
yesterday
10
@Džuris - and you are absolutely entitled to hold that opinion. My experiences and assessments would differ.
– Wesley Long
yesterday
4
In my field, the only useful thing people learn from a college degree is how to carry on learning. None of the specifics that you learned amount to much, in practical situations.
– alephzero
yesterday
4
Completely false . 1 year on a good job equals < 1 semester of a good uni (and does not even need to be tops) .. unless the job were exceptional in which case it's closer to even (but still weighted towards school). I'm saying this after 2 decades of experience and then going back to school. What exactly do you do on the job that would make you come up with this? 12 hours a day 365 days a year running and evaluating experiments to complex hypotheses? That sounds like someone preparing their dissertation .. not in a 9-5 job with long coffee breaks.
– javadba
20 hours ago
14
14
I totally agree with the concept of a year in the workforce being worth more than a year in college, I just think your scale is off in a way. I think I would say a month in the workforce might be worth less than a year of college, but that a year in the workforce could be worth all four years of college, and five years in the workforce is worth more than a lifetime of college. So I suppose if I were to get mathematical about it, I feel like the relationship is perhaps exponential and not linear. I've ignored college completely on resumes that have more than one job listed.
– Todd Wilcox
yesterday
I totally agree with the concept of a year in the workforce being worth more than a year in college, I just think your scale is off in a way. I think I would say a month in the workforce might be worth less than a year of college, but that a year in the workforce could be worth all four years of college, and five years in the workforce is worth more than a lifetime of college. So I suppose if I were to get mathematical about it, I feel like the relationship is perhaps exponential and not linear. I've ignored college completely on resumes that have more than one job listed.
– Todd Wilcox
yesterday
9
9
I don't agree with that estimate at all. One year in the workforce provides you the skills to deal with problems that you were exposed to. Learning by experience is inductive and usually deep but narrow. With inductive learning every new problem is a new problem. With a university background you already know the general cases and all that comes in your work is just a special case/application that you can pick up pretty fast instead of learning it from scratch. Even 15 years in the workforce will rarely provide you what good education does in 3 years.
– Džuris
yesterday
I don't agree with that estimate at all. One year in the workforce provides you the skills to deal with problems that you were exposed to. Learning by experience is inductive and usually deep but narrow. With inductive learning every new problem is a new problem. With a university background you already know the general cases and all that comes in your work is just a special case/application that you can pick up pretty fast instead of learning it from scratch. Even 15 years in the workforce will rarely provide you what good education does in 3 years.
– Džuris
yesterday
10
10
@Džuris - and you are absolutely entitled to hold that opinion. My experiences and assessments would differ.
– Wesley Long
yesterday
@Džuris - and you are absolutely entitled to hold that opinion. My experiences and assessments would differ.
– Wesley Long
yesterday
4
4
In my field, the only useful thing people learn from a college degree is how to carry on learning. None of the specifics that you learned amount to much, in practical situations.
– alephzero
yesterday
In my field, the only useful thing people learn from a college degree is how to carry on learning. None of the specifics that you learned amount to much, in practical situations.
– alephzero
yesterday
4
4
Completely false . 1 year on a good job equals < 1 semester of a good uni (and does not even need to be tops) .. unless the job were exceptional in which case it's closer to even (but still weighted towards school). I'm saying this after 2 decades of experience and then going back to school. What exactly do you do on the job that would make you come up with this? 12 hours a day 365 days a year running and evaluating experiments to complex hypotheses? That sounds like someone preparing their dissertation .. not in a 9-5 job with long coffee breaks.
– javadba
20 hours ago
Completely false . 1 year on a good job equals < 1 semester of a good uni (and does not even need to be tops) .. unless the job were exceptional in which case it's closer to even (but still weighted towards school). I'm saying this after 2 decades of experience and then going back to school. What exactly do you do on the job that would make you come up with this? 12 hours a day 365 days a year running and evaluating experiments to complex hypotheses? That sounds like someone preparing their dissertation .. not in a 9-5 job with long coffee breaks.
– javadba
20 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
This question makes assumptions that are worth being picked apart in detail.
First, if the company wanted to hire people stupider than themselves, and believed that the quality of school was a proxy for how smart the applicant is, and that the school on the transcript was a school smart people go to, they wouldn’t have brought the candidate in for an interview in the first place.
Well managed companies typically want to hire people who are smarter/better than the people already working there, because they need people to do work that they cannot already do. If a company wants to hire people who are stupider than the people who work there out of some sort of inadequacy that normal adults grow out of after leaving school, then that is a company you should avoid working for. That would imply acting more smart, rather than less.
But even then, you shouldn’t try to “game” these aspects of interviewing. You don’t know in advance what sort of preferences the interviewers have. You don’t know whether they want smart people or whether they want dumb people out of their own insecurity. You don’t know whether they want people who went to good schools or people who went to bad schools. You don’t know if they’re virtuous or vicious. Because you don’t know these these things, it’s hard to play a game to get them right. It’s hard to pretend.
What you do know, is if you take an offer, you’re going to have to work there for a time long enough that everyone is going to see through your pretending ability. So, don’t waste their time and yours pretending to be something that you are not.
add a comment |
This question makes assumptions that are worth being picked apart in detail.
First, if the company wanted to hire people stupider than themselves, and believed that the quality of school was a proxy for how smart the applicant is, and that the school on the transcript was a school smart people go to, they wouldn’t have brought the candidate in for an interview in the first place.
Well managed companies typically want to hire people who are smarter/better than the people already working there, because they need people to do work that they cannot already do. If a company wants to hire people who are stupider than the people who work there out of some sort of inadequacy that normal adults grow out of after leaving school, then that is a company you should avoid working for. That would imply acting more smart, rather than less.
But even then, you shouldn’t try to “game” these aspects of interviewing. You don’t know in advance what sort of preferences the interviewers have. You don’t know whether they want smart people or whether they want dumb people out of their own insecurity. You don’t know whether they want people who went to good schools or people who went to bad schools. You don’t know if they’re virtuous or vicious. Because you don’t know these these things, it’s hard to play a game to get them right. It’s hard to pretend.
What you do know, is if you take an offer, you’re going to have to work there for a time long enough that everyone is going to see through your pretending ability. So, don’t waste their time and yours pretending to be something that you are not.
add a comment |
This question makes assumptions that are worth being picked apart in detail.
First, if the company wanted to hire people stupider than themselves, and believed that the quality of school was a proxy for how smart the applicant is, and that the school on the transcript was a school smart people go to, they wouldn’t have brought the candidate in for an interview in the first place.
Well managed companies typically want to hire people who are smarter/better than the people already working there, because they need people to do work that they cannot already do. If a company wants to hire people who are stupider than the people who work there out of some sort of inadequacy that normal adults grow out of after leaving school, then that is a company you should avoid working for. That would imply acting more smart, rather than less.
But even then, you shouldn’t try to “game” these aspects of interviewing. You don’t know in advance what sort of preferences the interviewers have. You don’t know whether they want smart people or whether they want dumb people out of their own insecurity. You don’t know whether they want people who went to good schools or people who went to bad schools. You don’t know if they’re virtuous or vicious. Because you don’t know these these things, it’s hard to play a game to get them right. It’s hard to pretend.
What you do know, is if you take an offer, you’re going to have to work there for a time long enough that everyone is going to see through your pretending ability. So, don’t waste their time and yours pretending to be something that you are not.
This question makes assumptions that are worth being picked apart in detail.
First, if the company wanted to hire people stupider than themselves, and believed that the quality of school was a proxy for how smart the applicant is, and that the school on the transcript was a school smart people go to, they wouldn’t have brought the candidate in for an interview in the first place.
Well managed companies typically want to hire people who are smarter/better than the people already working there, because they need people to do work that they cannot already do. If a company wants to hire people who are stupider than the people who work there out of some sort of inadequacy that normal adults grow out of after leaving school, then that is a company you should avoid working for. That would imply acting more smart, rather than less.
But even then, you shouldn’t try to “game” these aspects of interviewing. You don’t know in advance what sort of preferences the interviewers have. You don’t know whether they want smart people or whether they want dumb people out of their own insecurity. You don’t know whether they want people who went to good schools or people who went to bad schools. You don’t know if they’re virtuous or vicious. Because you don’t know these these things, it’s hard to play a game to get them right. It’s hard to pretend.
What you do know, is if you take an offer, you’re going to have to work there for a time long enough that everyone is going to see through your pretending ability. So, don’t waste their time and yours pretending to be something that you are not.
edited yesterday
Mister Positive♦
62.1k33205249
62.1k33205249
answered yesterday
JoeJoe
1,10318
1,10318
add a comment |
add a comment |
While you don't want to appear arrogant or a "show-off" there's no reason to appear weaker or less intelligent/capable then you actually are.
I always want to hire the best person for the job, regardless of their relative intelligence vis a vis myself, in fact hiring people smarter than yourself is what we call "good management".
add a comment |
While you don't want to appear arrogant or a "show-off" there's no reason to appear weaker or less intelligent/capable then you actually are.
I always want to hire the best person for the job, regardless of their relative intelligence vis a vis myself, in fact hiring people smarter than yourself is what we call "good management".
add a comment |
While you don't want to appear arrogant or a "show-off" there's no reason to appear weaker or less intelligent/capable then you actually are.
I always want to hire the best person for the job, regardless of their relative intelligence vis a vis myself, in fact hiring people smarter than yourself is what we call "good management".
While you don't want to appear arrogant or a "show-off" there's no reason to appear weaker or less intelligent/capable then you actually are.
I always want to hire the best person for the job, regardless of their relative intelligence vis a vis myself, in fact hiring people smarter than yourself is what we call "good management".
answered yesterday
motosubatsumotosubatsu
50.1k27134197
50.1k27134197
add a comment |
add a comment |
The candidate should behave reasonably, regardless of the interviewers.
Think about this: how should Einstein behave during a job interview? Of course, almost everybody on Earth would look stupid by comparison, regardless of University degrees.
By "reasonably" I mean:
- be polite and civilized;
- answer the answers as truthfully as possible, while selling yourself in the best way possible;
- do not boast about yourself;
- let the interviewers deal with what / who they want to hire for the job they have to offer.
good, but who knows how einstein behaved?
– feynman
yesterday
2
@feynman anyone who knew him? He isn't some legendary being, there are still people alive today who met him. (Granted, the number is dwindling rapidly, but still. He died only 65 years ago.)
– Erik
yesterday
1
It is not the point how he actually behaved - he probably did not get interviewed by the companies, but companies were interview by him. The example is related to OP's statement "interviewers have lower educational backgrounds" - in comparison with Einstein, even some real geniuses had lower educational backgrounds.
– virolino
yesterday
add a comment |
The candidate should behave reasonably, regardless of the interviewers.
Think about this: how should Einstein behave during a job interview? Of course, almost everybody on Earth would look stupid by comparison, regardless of University degrees.
By "reasonably" I mean:
- be polite and civilized;
- answer the answers as truthfully as possible, while selling yourself in the best way possible;
- do not boast about yourself;
- let the interviewers deal with what / who they want to hire for the job they have to offer.
good, but who knows how einstein behaved?
– feynman
yesterday
2
@feynman anyone who knew him? He isn't some legendary being, there are still people alive today who met him. (Granted, the number is dwindling rapidly, but still. He died only 65 years ago.)
– Erik
yesterday
1
It is not the point how he actually behaved - he probably did not get interviewed by the companies, but companies were interview by him. The example is related to OP's statement "interviewers have lower educational backgrounds" - in comparison with Einstein, even some real geniuses had lower educational backgrounds.
– virolino
yesterday
add a comment |
The candidate should behave reasonably, regardless of the interviewers.
Think about this: how should Einstein behave during a job interview? Of course, almost everybody on Earth would look stupid by comparison, regardless of University degrees.
By "reasonably" I mean:
- be polite and civilized;
- answer the answers as truthfully as possible, while selling yourself in the best way possible;
- do not boast about yourself;
- let the interviewers deal with what / who they want to hire for the job they have to offer.
The candidate should behave reasonably, regardless of the interviewers.
Think about this: how should Einstein behave during a job interview? Of course, almost everybody on Earth would look stupid by comparison, regardless of University degrees.
By "reasonably" I mean:
- be polite and civilized;
- answer the answers as truthfully as possible, while selling yourself in the best way possible;
- do not boast about yourself;
- let the interviewers deal with what / who they want to hire for the job they have to offer.
answered yesterday
virolinovirolino
2,425120
2,425120
good, but who knows how einstein behaved?
– feynman
yesterday
2
@feynman anyone who knew him? He isn't some legendary being, there are still people alive today who met him. (Granted, the number is dwindling rapidly, but still. He died only 65 years ago.)
– Erik
yesterday
1
It is not the point how he actually behaved - he probably did not get interviewed by the companies, but companies were interview by him. The example is related to OP's statement "interviewers have lower educational backgrounds" - in comparison with Einstein, even some real geniuses had lower educational backgrounds.
– virolino
yesterday
add a comment |
good, but who knows how einstein behaved?
– feynman
yesterday
2
@feynman anyone who knew him? He isn't some legendary being, there are still people alive today who met him. (Granted, the number is dwindling rapidly, but still. He died only 65 years ago.)
– Erik
yesterday
1
It is not the point how he actually behaved - he probably did not get interviewed by the companies, but companies were interview by him. The example is related to OP's statement "interviewers have lower educational backgrounds" - in comparison with Einstein, even some real geniuses had lower educational backgrounds.
– virolino
yesterday
good, but who knows how einstein behaved?
– feynman
yesterday
good, but who knows how einstein behaved?
– feynman
yesterday
2
2
@feynman anyone who knew him? He isn't some legendary being, there are still people alive today who met him. (Granted, the number is dwindling rapidly, but still. He died only 65 years ago.)
– Erik
yesterday
@feynman anyone who knew him? He isn't some legendary being, there are still people alive today who met him. (Granted, the number is dwindling rapidly, but still. He died only 65 years ago.)
– Erik
yesterday
1
1
It is not the point how he actually behaved - he probably did not get interviewed by the companies, but companies were interview by him. The example is related to OP's statement "interviewers have lower educational backgrounds" - in comparison with Einstein, even some real geniuses had lower educational backgrounds.
– virolino
yesterday
It is not the point how he actually behaved - he probably did not get interviewed by the companies, but companies were interview by him. The example is related to OP's statement "interviewers have lower educational backgrounds" - in comparison with Einstein, even some real geniuses had lower educational backgrounds.
– virolino
yesterday
add a comment |
Sell yourself as who you are. No more, no less, because your actual credentials will come out during the course of employment. If you misled the people you will be working with, you will not do well on the job.
add a comment |
Sell yourself as who you are. No more, no less, because your actual credentials will come out during the course of employment. If you misled the people you will be working with, you will not do well on the job.
add a comment |
Sell yourself as who you are. No more, no less, because your actual credentials will come out during the course of employment. If you misled the people you will be working with, you will not do well on the job.
Sell yourself as who you are. No more, no less, because your actual credentials will come out during the course of employment. If you misled the people you will be working with, you will not do well on the job.
answered yesterday
Richard URichard U
99.1k73267393
99.1k73267393
add a comment |
add a comment |
Copying the manners of the people you are talking to is actually a pretty neat psychological trick to make yourself appear more likeable. People generally like people more when they are similar to them. This is called mirroring. And besides, nobody likes arrogant know-it-alls. Talking in a way which is appropriate to the audience is an important social skill. But keep a few things in mind:
- Using psychological tricks to your advantage raises ethical problems. You are literally manipulating people into liking you.
- They might know that trick and realize you are trying to pull it off, which would be a red flag.
- They might actually be consciously looking for someone who is smarter than they are (or as smart as they think they are). Remember the job description and consider what kind of person they are likely looking for.
- If you have to "play dumb" in the interview in order to get the job, you will have to to "play dump" for the rest of the time you are working there. Do you really want to keep up this charade? Or wouldn't you be more comfortable working for someone who accepts you the way you really are?
add a comment |
Copying the manners of the people you are talking to is actually a pretty neat psychological trick to make yourself appear more likeable. People generally like people more when they are similar to them. This is called mirroring. And besides, nobody likes arrogant know-it-alls. Talking in a way which is appropriate to the audience is an important social skill. But keep a few things in mind:
- Using psychological tricks to your advantage raises ethical problems. You are literally manipulating people into liking you.
- They might know that trick and realize you are trying to pull it off, which would be a red flag.
- They might actually be consciously looking for someone who is smarter than they are (or as smart as they think they are). Remember the job description and consider what kind of person they are likely looking for.
- If you have to "play dumb" in the interview in order to get the job, you will have to to "play dump" for the rest of the time you are working there. Do you really want to keep up this charade? Or wouldn't you be more comfortable working for someone who accepts you the way you really are?
add a comment |
Copying the manners of the people you are talking to is actually a pretty neat psychological trick to make yourself appear more likeable. People generally like people more when they are similar to them. This is called mirroring. And besides, nobody likes arrogant know-it-alls. Talking in a way which is appropriate to the audience is an important social skill. But keep a few things in mind:
- Using psychological tricks to your advantage raises ethical problems. You are literally manipulating people into liking you.
- They might know that trick and realize you are trying to pull it off, which would be a red flag.
- They might actually be consciously looking for someone who is smarter than they are (or as smart as they think they are). Remember the job description and consider what kind of person they are likely looking for.
- If you have to "play dumb" in the interview in order to get the job, you will have to to "play dump" for the rest of the time you are working there. Do you really want to keep up this charade? Or wouldn't you be more comfortable working for someone who accepts you the way you really are?
Copying the manners of the people you are talking to is actually a pretty neat psychological trick to make yourself appear more likeable. People generally like people more when they are similar to them. This is called mirroring. And besides, nobody likes arrogant know-it-alls. Talking in a way which is appropriate to the audience is an important social skill. But keep a few things in mind:
- Using psychological tricks to your advantage raises ethical problems. You are literally manipulating people into liking you.
- They might know that trick and realize you are trying to pull it off, which would be a red flag.
- They might actually be consciously looking for someone who is smarter than they are (or as smart as they think they are). Remember the job description and consider what kind of person they are likely looking for.
- If you have to "play dumb" in the interview in order to get the job, you will have to to "play dump" for the rest of the time you are working there. Do you really want to keep up this charade? Or wouldn't you be more comfortable working for someone who accepts you the way you really are?
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
PhilippPhilipp
24.3k55792
24.3k55792
add a comment |
add a comment |
Other answers have pointed out that the educational background detail is loaded with naive assumptions, but putting that aside and addressing your core question: Should you purposefully make yourself appear less capable in order to get hired somewhere where you suspect your hiring manager(s) won't hire somebody more capable than they are?
Unless you have a really compelling reason to want to get hired for this particular organisation / role, if you suspect this is the case you're better off walking away.
Managers not hiring people more capable than them is a huge red flag that the team / organisation's culture is not a good one. Both your immediate day-to-day and longer term career growth prospects will likely be much worse in such a culture than in one where managers are simply looking to hire the best people they can find, at all levels.
If you are confident in your abilities, as you seem to be, you likely have other, better options. If you even have to ask this question going into an interview, it's a signal you should just decline it and look elsewhere.
add a comment |
Other answers have pointed out that the educational background detail is loaded with naive assumptions, but putting that aside and addressing your core question: Should you purposefully make yourself appear less capable in order to get hired somewhere where you suspect your hiring manager(s) won't hire somebody more capable than they are?
Unless you have a really compelling reason to want to get hired for this particular organisation / role, if you suspect this is the case you're better off walking away.
Managers not hiring people more capable than them is a huge red flag that the team / organisation's culture is not a good one. Both your immediate day-to-day and longer term career growth prospects will likely be much worse in such a culture than in one where managers are simply looking to hire the best people they can find, at all levels.
If you are confident in your abilities, as you seem to be, you likely have other, better options. If you even have to ask this question going into an interview, it's a signal you should just decline it and look elsewhere.
add a comment |
Other answers have pointed out that the educational background detail is loaded with naive assumptions, but putting that aside and addressing your core question: Should you purposefully make yourself appear less capable in order to get hired somewhere where you suspect your hiring manager(s) won't hire somebody more capable than they are?
Unless you have a really compelling reason to want to get hired for this particular organisation / role, if you suspect this is the case you're better off walking away.
Managers not hiring people more capable than them is a huge red flag that the team / organisation's culture is not a good one. Both your immediate day-to-day and longer term career growth prospects will likely be much worse in such a culture than in one where managers are simply looking to hire the best people they can find, at all levels.
If you are confident in your abilities, as you seem to be, you likely have other, better options. If you even have to ask this question going into an interview, it's a signal you should just decline it and look elsewhere.
Other answers have pointed out that the educational background detail is loaded with naive assumptions, but putting that aside and addressing your core question: Should you purposefully make yourself appear less capable in order to get hired somewhere where you suspect your hiring manager(s) won't hire somebody more capable than they are?
Unless you have a really compelling reason to want to get hired for this particular organisation / role, if you suspect this is the case you're better off walking away.
Managers not hiring people more capable than them is a huge red flag that the team / organisation's culture is not a good one. Both your immediate day-to-day and longer term career growth prospects will likely be much worse in such a culture than in one where managers are simply looking to hire the best people they can find, at all levels.
If you are confident in your abilities, as you seem to be, you likely have other, better options. If you even have to ask this question going into an interview, it's a signal you should just decline it and look elsewhere.
edited 19 hours ago
answered yesterday
davnicwildavnicwil
1,562210
1,562210
add a comment |
add a comment |
There is much here already for the OP to reflect on about the true value of degrees, and more importantly how other people view them.
But I can tell you one thing for sure: I wouldn't hire someone who flounced into an interview to show off. At work, arrogance is a real hindrance. As mustaccio pointed out so aptly in the comments, the Dunning-Kruger effect is not a good thing to be dealing with.
add a comment |
There is much here already for the OP to reflect on about the true value of degrees, and more importantly how other people view them.
But I can tell you one thing for sure: I wouldn't hire someone who flounced into an interview to show off. At work, arrogance is a real hindrance. As mustaccio pointed out so aptly in the comments, the Dunning-Kruger effect is not a good thing to be dealing with.
add a comment |
There is much here already for the OP to reflect on about the true value of degrees, and more importantly how other people view them.
But I can tell you one thing for sure: I wouldn't hire someone who flounced into an interview to show off. At work, arrogance is a real hindrance. As mustaccio pointed out so aptly in the comments, the Dunning-Kruger effect is not a good thing to be dealing with.
There is much here already for the OP to reflect on about the true value of degrees, and more importantly how other people view them.
But I can tell you one thing for sure: I wouldn't hire someone who flounced into an interview to show off. At work, arrogance is a real hindrance. As mustaccio pointed out so aptly in the comments, the Dunning-Kruger effect is not a good thing to be dealing with.
answered yesterday
George MGeorge M
1,100215
1,100215
add a comment |
add a comment |
I agree that employers might prefer hiring people less or as smart people as they are.
I think that the answer depends on what really you want.
Are you over-educated for that job? And, despite this, do you really want that job?
I have been in this situation, and I tried to reserve part of my repertoire. But, after getting the job, I recognized the mismatch. The employer also recognized the mismatch. And I had to find a new job. After making the same error twice, now I am in a position when my reportoire is appreciated in full.
To sum up: if you reserve your repertoire maybe you get the work. But it won't last.
2
"Might" is an important word in your first sentence. And, even if it's true for a specific employer, it begs a question, which I think you have answered well: do you really want to "fake" the interview in order to get a job, for an employer where you won't be a good fit? Or should you be honest and then be happy about not getting a job where you might not have fit well?
– dwizum
yesterday
@user3664452 having ur reportoire appreciated in full is difficult unless in academia. luckily u got it. i agree with u. sometimes one just needs a job
– feynman
22 hours ago
add a comment |
I agree that employers might prefer hiring people less or as smart people as they are.
I think that the answer depends on what really you want.
Are you over-educated for that job? And, despite this, do you really want that job?
I have been in this situation, and I tried to reserve part of my repertoire. But, after getting the job, I recognized the mismatch. The employer also recognized the mismatch. And I had to find a new job. After making the same error twice, now I am in a position when my reportoire is appreciated in full.
To sum up: if you reserve your repertoire maybe you get the work. But it won't last.
2
"Might" is an important word in your first sentence. And, even if it's true for a specific employer, it begs a question, which I think you have answered well: do you really want to "fake" the interview in order to get a job, for an employer where you won't be a good fit? Or should you be honest and then be happy about not getting a job where you might not have fit well?
– dwizum
yesterday
@user3664452 having ur reportoire appreciated in full is difficult unless in academia. luckily u got it. i agree with u. sometimes one just needs a job
– feynman
22 hours ago
add a comment |
I agree that employers might prefer hiring people less or as smart people as they are.
I think that the answer depends on what really you want.
Are you over-educated for that job? And, despite this, do you really want that job?
I have been in this situation, and I tried to reserve part of my repertoire. But, after getting the job, I recognized the mismatch. The employer also recognized the mismatch. And I had to find a new job. After making the same error twice, now I am in a position when my reportoire is appreciated in full.
To sum up: if you reserve your repertoire maybe you get the work. But it won't last.
I agree that employers might prefer hiring people less or as smart people as they are.
I think that the answer depends on what really you want.
Are you over-educated for that job? And, despite this, do you really want that job?
I have been in this situation, and I tried to reserve part of my repertoire. But, after getting the job, I recognized the mismatch. The employer also recognized the mismatch. And I had to find a new job. After making the same error twice, now I am in a position when my reportoire is appreciated in full.
To sum up: if you reserve your repertoire maybe you get the work. But it won't last.
answered yesterday
user3664452user3664452
1193
1193
2
"Might" is an important word in your first sentence. And, even if it's true for a specific employer, it begs a question, which I think you have answered well: do you really want to "fake" the interview in order to get a job, for an employer where you won't be a good fit? Or should you be honest and then be happy about not getting a job where you might not have fit well?
– dwizum
yesterday
@user3664452 having ur reportoire appreciated in full is difficult unless in academia. luckily u got it. i agree with u. sometimes one just needs a job
– feynman
22 hours ago
add a comment |
2
"Might" is an important word in your first sentence. And, even if it's true for a specific employer, it begs a question, which I think you have answered well: do you really want to "fake" the interview in order to get a job, for an employer where you won't be a good fit? Or should you be honest and then be happy about not getting a job where you might not have fit well?
– dwizum
yesterday
@user3664452 having ur reportoire appreciated in full is difficult unless in academia. luckily u got it. i agree with u. sometimes one just needs a job
– feynman
22 hours ago
2
2
"Might" is an important word in your first sentence. And, even if it's true for a specific employer, it begs a question, which I think you have answered well: do you really want to "fake" the interview in order to get a job, for an employer where you won't be a good fit? Or should you be honest and then be happy about not getting a job where you might not have fit well?
– dwizum
yesterday
"Might" is an important word in your first sentence. And, even if it's true for a specific employer, it begs a question, which I think you have answered well: do you really want to "fake" the interview in order to get a job, for an employer where you won't be a good fit? Or should you be honest and then be happy about not getting a job where you might not have fit well?
– dwizum
yesterday
@user3664452 having ur reportoire appreciated in full is difficult unless in academia. luckily u got it. i agree with u. sometimes one just needs a job
– feynman
22 hours ago
@user3664452 having ur reportoire appreciated in full is difficult unless in academia. luckily u got it. i agree with u. sometimes one just needs a job
– feynman
22 hours ago
add a comment |
From personal experience, I can recommend not downplaying your abilities - but definitely downplaying the "education" part. In many fields, the degree itself isn't particularly valuable, but the skills you developed while studying can be valuable.
I completed an M.S. in the social sciences. My work focused on computer simulation of social activities, so I had pretty solid quantitative skills and reasonable programming skills. My first job after college was in advertising. In my organization the only other person with a graduate degree was the CEO, who had an MBA. Some other high-ranking people had bachelors degrees, but many (if not most) people had no degree at all.
Having a degree, and the reputation of your school, will largely not be impressive. Instead focus on your skills. For me, this meant discussing how well I understood social behavior (which is important in advertising), quantitative skills, and technical skills. Don't focus on theory. Don't talk about your intelligence or education. Tell them what you can do for them.
One last piece of advice: don't suppose that you have any significant advantage over other staff because of your education. Many of those people have a lifetime of experience in their field and are incredibly talented. You do contribute a different skill set, which also brings value.
its interesting u do quant work after an MS in social sciences
– feynman
22 hours ago
add a comment |
From personal experience, I can recommend not downplaying your abilities - but definitely downplaying the "education" part. In many fields, the degree itself isn't particularly valuable, but the skills you developed while studying can be valuable.
I completed an M.S. in the social sciences. My work focused on computer simulation of social activities, so I had pretty solid quantitative skills and reasonable programming skills. My first job after college was in advertising. In my organization the only other person with a graduate degree was the CEO, who had an MBA. Some other high-ranking people had bachelors degrees, but many (if not most) people had no degree at all.
Having a degree, and the reputation of your school, will largely not be impressive. Instead focus on your skills. For me, this meant discussing how well I understood social behavior (which is important in advertising), quantitative skills, and technical skills. Don't focus on theory. Don't talk about your intelligence or education. Tell them what you can do for them.
One last piece of advice: don't suppose that you have any significant advantage over other staff because of your education. Many of those people have a lifetime of experience in their field and are incredibly talented. You do contribute a different skill set, which also brings value.
its interesting u do quant work after an MS in social sciences
– feynman
22 hours ago
add a comment |
From personal experience, I can recommend not downplaying your abilities - but definitely downplaying the "education" part. In many fields, the degree itself isn't particularly valuable, but the skills you developed while studying can be valuable.
I completed an M.S. in the social sciences. My work focused on computer simulation of social activities, so I had pretty solid quantitative skills and reasonable programming skills. My first job after college was in advertising. In my organization the only other person with a graduate degree was the CEO, who had an MBA. Some other high-ranking people had bachelors degrees, but many (if not most) people had no degree at all.
Having a degree, and the reputation of your school, will largely not be impressive. Instead focus on your skills. For me, this meant discussing how well I understood social behavior (which is important in advertising), quantitative skills, and technical skills. Don't focus on theory. Don't talk about your intelligence or education. Tell them what you can do for them.
One last piece of advice: don't suppose that you have any significant advantage over other staff because of your education. Many of those people have a lifetime of experience in their field and are incredibly talented. You do contribute a different skill set, which also brings value.
From personal experience, I can recommend not downplaying your abilities - but definitely downplaying the "education" part. In many fields, the degree itself isn't particularly valuable, but the skills you developed while studying can be valuable.
I completed an M.S. in the social sciences. My work focused on computer simulation of social activities, so I had pretty solid quantitative skills and reasonable programming skills. My first job after college was in advertising. In my organization the only other person with a graduate degree was the CEO, who had an MBA. Some other high-ranking people had bachelors degrees, but many (if not most) people had no degree at all.
Having a degree, and the reputation of your school, will largely not be impressive. Instead focus on your skills. For me, this meant discussing how well I understood social behavior (which is important in advertising), quantitative skills, and technical skills. Don't focus on theory. Don't talk about your intelligence or education. Tell them what you can do for them.
One last piece of advice: don't suppose that you have any significant advantage over other staff because of your education. Many of those people have a lifetime of experience in their field and are incredibly talented. You do contribute a different skill set, which also brings value.
answered yesterday
indigochildindigochild
1667
1667
its interesting u do quant work after an MS in social sciences
– feynman
22 hours ago
add a comment |
its interesting u do quant work after an MS in social sciences
– feynman
22 hours ago
its interesting u do quant work after an MS in social sciences
– feynman
22 hours ago
its interesting u do quant work after an MS in social sciences
– feynman
22 hours ago
add a comment |
feynman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
feynman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
feynman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
feynman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to The Workplace Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f130842%2fthe-need-of-reserving-ones-ability-in-job-interviews%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
219
You seem to assume that lesser educational background necessarily implies less smart. I got my PhD at age 60, after an industry career.. I don't think I magically became smarter then.
– Patricia Shanahan
yesterday
52
because you say that they 'might prefer hiring people less or as smart people as they are' and by that are implying that because you are from a higher ranked school you are smarter
– Aserre
yesterday
141
Did your highly ranked school teach you about Dunning-Kruger effect?
– mustaccio
yesterday
17
I don't understand why so many people downvote this. It's a kind of OK question. That's the criteria that should be used for voting, not whether or not you completely disagree with the asker. I upvoted it just to counter-balance some of this flawed approach (even though I also completely disagree with its premise).
– Radu Murzea
yesterday
29
Rankings of schools often demonstrates nothing more than the fact that your parents had a lot of money.
– jamesqf
yesterday