So far from what I have observed through various job huntings and having worked in the government service for a number of years, paper qualifications take precedent over everything else. One can be the most incapable person, but as long as he has the necessary qualifications, he will still be paid higher with better prospects than others.
Take a teaching job for instance. The scale is very extreme. Taking into account that all are starting from the entry-level, ie fresh from school with no working experience, 'A' level holders are the lowest of the lot. Someone with just 'A' levels and no NS will command a starting salary of less than S$1,500.00. Someone with a non-technical diploma and no NS will start off with S$1,500.00, and someone with a technical diploma but with NS can start off with S$2,000.00. Why is this so?
The pay for graduates are even more extreme. Someone with a mere pass arts or non-technical degree and no NS will start off with S$2,200.00, and someone with a first class honours science or technical degree with NS can already command about S$3,000.00 starting pay. What I will give to have a starting salary of S$3,000.00. It is just so unfair!
Even in job hunting, I face the same problem. Those jobs that do not require high qualifications are those jobs that take in just 'O' or 'A' level holders, and someone like me is considered "too qualified". On the other hand, those jobs that require any form of tertiary education are those jobs that need specialised diplomas or degrees, or at least a few years of industrial experience, and someone like me will then be considered "under-qualified". What is the use of studying so much when in the end one gets nowhere?
Is it really that big a deal how highly educated a person is? Nowadays, a mere degree is nothing. Out of ten people on the streets, at least eight have a degree. Even an honours degree is nothing much. People are upgrading to Masters, and soon, there will be more and more Masters degree holders out on the streets. After that PhD, now there is even post-doctorate studies. What class of degree will that be? PPhD? Or PhD2?
More and more people are upgrading so as to get better job prospects. I do not deny that I am one of them, although I study more for passion and interest, not so much as to land a big glamourous job whatsoever. But the fact remains that when employers view resumes, normally they will take the ones that are most relevant and highest qualified.
For instance, if they put the salary range as that of a degree holder, normally they will only expect degree holders to apply, although a diploma holder after gaining a few years of experience may also be able to command that sum. So in the end it still all boils down to qualifications and experience. What happened to all the talk about hiring only younger workers as older workers are "more expensive"?
Imagine this scenario. There are two guys vying for the same job. The job scope states "diploma and above". The first guy holds a first-class honours, comes from a rich family, arrogant, competitive, prone to jealousy and backstabbing, always thinks he is right, and has a poor attitude towards learning. The second guy only has a diploma, but very willing to upgrade himself, believes in life-long learning, comes from a simple background, humble, helpful, nice to others and has a very good attitude towards learning.
Now which of the two would the company select? Chances are the company will select the first guy based on qualifications alone. But that is where the interview comes in. During an interview, employers can seek out who are the most suitable ones (although not every employer will do a good job on that, judging from my recent experiences) and then hire the person based on the qualities they have. After confirming the job offer, that is where the probation period comes in, where the employer and new employee can observe and see each other's true colours before deciding whether to continue the employment. Thus the second guy may get chosen over the first guy in the end, simply due to his good attitude and willingness to learn.
I cannot profess I am that experienced in this, as I have never been in HR or Personnel so have never hired or fired anyone (rather it is always me getting hired and fired). But personally, if I am an employer, I will take the one not as hghly educated yet more willing and eager to learn and adapt. Qualifications are but one step, but to last for long, the attitude and willingness to upgrade must be there. Although my friends who are non-graduates may not agree with me on this point, as they always think the graduates are the ones that get all the good jobs out there.
Take a teaching job for instance. The scale is very extreme. Taking into account that all are starting from the entry-level, ie fresh from school with no working experience, 'A' level holders are the lowest of the lot. Someone with just 'A' levels and no NS will command a starting salary of less than S$1,500.00. Someone with a non-technical diploma and no NS will start off with S$1,500.00, and someone with a technical diploma but with NS can start off with S$2,000.00. Why is this so?
The pay for graduates are even more extreme. Someone with a mere pass arts or non-technical degree and no NS will start off with S$2,200.00, and someone with a first class honours science or technical degree with NS can already command about S$3,000.00 starting pay. What I will give to have a starting salary of S$3,000.00. It is just so unfair!
Even in job hunting, I face the same problem. Those jobs that do not require high qualifications are those jobs that take in just 'O' or 'A' level holders, and someone like me is considered "too qualified". On the other hand, those jobs that require any form of tertiary education are those jobs that need specialised diplomas or degrees, or at least a few years of industrial experience, and someone like me will then be considered "under-qualified". What is the use of studying so much when in the end one gets nowhere?
Is it really that big a deal how highly educated a person is? Nowadays, a mere degree is nothing. Out of ten people on the streets, at least eight have a degree. Even an honours degree is nothing much. People are upgrading to Masters, and soon, there will be more and more Masters degree holders out on the streets. After that PhD, now there is even post-doctorate studies. What class of degree will that be? PPhD? Or PhD2?
More and more people are upgrading so as to get better job prospects. I do not deny that I am one of them, although I study more for passion and interest, not so much as to land a big glamourous job whatsoever. But the fact remains that when employers view resumes, normally they will take the ones that are most relevant and highest qualified.
For instance, if they put the salary range as that of a degree holder, normally they will only expect degree holders to apply, although a diploma holder after gaining a few years of experience may also be able to command that sum. So in the end it still all boils down to qualifications and experience. What happened to all the talk about hiring only younger workers as older workers are "more expensive"?
Imagine this scenario. There are two guys vying for the same job. The job scope states "diploma and above". The first guy holds a first-class honours, comes from a rich family, arrogant, competitive, prone to jealousy and backstabbing, always thinks he is right, and has a poor attitude towards learning. The second guy only has a diploma, but very willing to upgrade himself, believes in life-long learning, comes from a simple background, humble, helpful, nice to others and has a very good attitude towards learning.
Now which of the two would the company select? Chances are the company will select the first guy based on qualifications alone. But that is where the interview comes in. During an interview, employers can seek out who are the most suitable ones (although not every employer will do a good job on that, judging from my recent experiences) and then hire the person based on the qualities they have. After confirming the job offer, that is where the probation period comes in, where the employer and new employee can observe and see each other's true colours before deciding whether to continue the employment. Thus the second guy may get chosen over the first guy in the end, simply due to his good attitude and willingness to learn.
I cannot profess I am that experienced in this, as I have never been in HR or Personnel so have never hired or fired anyone (rather it is always me getting hired and fired). But personally, if I am an employer, I will take the one not as hghly educated yet more willing and eager to learn and adapt. Qualifications are but one step, but to last for long, the attitude and willingness to upgrade must be there. Although my friends who are non-graduates may not agree with me on this point, as they always think the graduates are the ones that get all the good jobs out there.
4 comments:
What?
I was ripped off!
My starting salary was less than $2200 when I was a teacher. (I do have a Degree in Engineering)
You mean gross or nett? And what year was it when you were teaching? As a trained or untrained teacher? I was quoting on the starting salaries of teachers who have already been trained by NIE.
Untrained.
But well, I guess it makes sense that the salary of an 'A' level holder differ compared to those of Diploma and Degree holder.
What I don't get is the high discrepancy between the honor grades. I have always hold the belief that if someone is good at something, it does not automatically mean that that person is good at teaching that particular thing. (Have I confused anyone yet?)
Oh.. untrained scale is different. Lower than the trained scale.
And I agree with you that just because someone is good in a certain subject does not mean he can teach that subject well. So it is unfair for such a high discrepancy.
Post a Comment