When recruiting what is more important Education or Experience?

Experience wins hands down. There may be a specific educational qualification required for a role which is fair enough but I also like to know if the person can DO the job.

Thankfully the EEOC has established a recent position about this.. EEOC issues Opinion Letter on Disparate Impact of Education (College Degree) Requirements http://bit.ly/diZgpZ

But to go back to one of the Very First Cases in American History As the Supreme Court stated in one of its earliest interpretations of Title VII

"History is filled with examples of men and women who rendered highly effective performance without the conventional badges of accomplishment in terms of certificates, diplomas, or degrees. Diplomas and tests are useful servants, but Congress has mandated the commonsense proposition that they are not to become masters of reality."(89)

see also
Irrational or Rational? To a meaningless degree http://bit.ly/h2C2e1

Remember companies to use the three magic words -- OR Equivalent experience

Hi Paul

I think an answer to this question becomes easier when you define what the two methods of learning cover.

For instance, you could take education to be mainly about facts, models, and memory-related skills. You could take experience to be mainly about living and working with other human beings. This or any other definition can then be applied to the context of the recruitment.

So, for a researcher who has to get results from data, education might be the greatest contributor; for a head of research getting results through people, experience might be the more important.

Its all about context.

This is a great question that I wish more hiring managers and human resources professionals asked themselves before deciding on the requirements for filling a position. Many times they don't, and then everyone (their hiring teams, and possibly third party recruiters) waste a lot of time getting to what it is that they really want in the perfect hire.

Fundamentally, it is really simple. Do you want someone that looks good on a piece of paper, or someone that can produce the results you are looking for? If you ask the question that way, most everyone would answer the question in the same way.

Too often, human resources writes the legally compliant, professional looking job posting that ends up nothing more than a laundry list of all the pieces they are looking for in a potential hire. Job seekers browse the company postings and job boards looking to see what they might qualify for from a laundry list perspective: degree, number of jobs, number of years on each job, certifications, advanced education, type of university attended, title of positions held, etc.

In the end, none of these answer the critical questions: How much did you save your last employer? How much revenue did you generate for your employer? How far under timeline were you able to complete your last assignment?

It comes down to the having, and the doing. Do you want someone on the job that has all the right pieces, or do you want someone on the job that has done the job you want before, exactly how you would have wanted it done, but just did it for another company and now you want to recruit them away to do it for you?

Then perception gets in the way. Some companies have a reputation to uphold. They must have only the best of the best from the Ivy League schools so that when their company directory is presented in their marketing they look like they have the cream of America's crops and are the most well stocked company of all.

It is funny how over the years, that the economy is not the only thing that cycles. Demands for big school MBA's also tend to run a pendulum course - some years it is THE thing to recruit and other years are more down and dirty - just get me the person that has the best track record.

In recruiting, we all know to focus on the doing, versus that having. Search entrepreneurs that have recruited at least one downturn in the economy (we ignore recessions because even with 10% unemployment, there is still 90% of the workforce still employed, accomplishing and achieving on their jobs with a potential ear to the ground for something that might be a personal, professional or financial bump for them) know that in the end, after all of the credentials have been looked at, someone will start to ask the tough questions about what their track record and experience is. One of the most reliable measures of determining if someone has the potential for success in a new role, is to see what their past successes were (past success = future success).

I have seen this very question asked many times. Usually by a recent college grad / 'fresher', or similar when showing frustration at the number of jobs that require 3+ years of experience. The argument being "how can I get experience, when all the jobs require prior experience?". On the other hand, I see experienced talent asking the reverse question a lot: "Why do all the jobs require a degree? Isn't my experience worth something?"

So, the real question might be "Are N number of years of experience equivalent to a degree? And is a degree equivalent to N number of years of experience - FOR THIS JOB?"

The answer lies in "for this job"... Each job has different levels of the myriad of internal and external relationships, roles, responsibilities, 'knowledge base', mentoring, oversight, partnering, peers, etc. Does the organization have a formal mentoring or training program? Does the role have a codified knowledge base to refer to? Is the role a 'Do-er'? Is the role a 'thinker'? This list is really exhausting and therein lies the answer. Can a recent college grad be placed into a role and be successful? Or does the role have a greater amount of autonomy and / or a core knowledge base where experience is required in order to hit the ground running?

In truth, most organizations know which roles land on either side of the fence, and confusion and bad hiring happens when the reality of the requirements have not been fully vetted out.