Frayed Prospects, Despite a Degree
nytimes.com
Frayed Prospects, Despite a Degree
1–10 of 52 posts
Re: Frayed Prospects, Despite a Degree
#2One of the things people don't like to talk about is how the economy handles the oversupply of college graduates: use bright line rules to get people out of the job market. Two candidates, a C/O 2012 and a C/O 2013 graduate should be fungible from the perspective of a recruiter, but they're not. The former has a scarlet letter on his resume, and people with lesser credentials from the next class will be hired over him.
The practical effect of this is to normalize the hiring pipeline quickly after a recession. But it has the effect of just cutting huge numbers of people, who happened to be unlucky to graduate in a down year, out of the market entirely. If you don't get a job a year or so after graduation in your major field, you probably never will.
Re: Frayed Prospects, Despite a Degree
#3Article took way too long to get to the crux of the problem:
1. Choose your majors carefully and plan your career early - A degree in communications doesn't really make you employable. . 2. These people aren't willing to relocate to a less than desirable area to get that first opportunity
Re: Frayed Prospects, Despite a Degree
#4One of the things people don't like to talk about is how the economy handles the oversupply of college graduates: use bright line rules to get people out of the job market. Two candidates, a C/O 2012 and a C/O 2013 graduate should be fungible from the perspective of a recruiter, but they're not. The former has a scarlet letter on his resume, and people with lesser credentials from the next class will be hired over hi…
> "a C/O 2012 and a C/O 2013 graduate should be fungible from the perspective of a recruiter, but they're not."
Assuming the 2012 grad doesn't have a year's experience, you don't think that the pool of those who have been passed over by hiring managers for the past year (as they presumably have) might be slightly less rich than the "fresh" pool of graduates from this year?
If you were a hiring manager, would you spend your time sorting through them, or would you work your way through the new class?
Re: Frayed Prospects, Despite a Degree
#5Am I the only one who thinks that we reached a point of nearly maximum efficiency? Think about it, that would explain everything.
The article clearly states that employers aren't interested in college graduates that finished two years ago if they didn't gather experience in the meantime. They'll happily hire the new kids straight out of college. If they can afford to pass over to thousands of graduates then it means they're just not needed. Even the latest crop of graduates is having a hard time finding a job. As I see it, there's no shortage of graduates (STEM of otherwise), conversely, there's an oversupply of graduates. A while ago I read an article that claimed that lost jobs aren't coming back and this only means, again, that many jobs and (thus workers) are not needed anymore. We can do more (or the same) with less. College graduates are taking jobs once reserved to high school graduates and dropouts, thus pushing these last groups into the ranks of unemployment. What if the global economic recession was just what was needed to cut useless jobs and turn companies into nimble and extremely efficient machines?
Re: Frayed Prospects, Despite a Degree
#6One of the things people don't like to talk about is how the economy handles the oversupply of college graduates: use bright line rules to get people out of the job market. Two candidates, a C/O 2012 and a C/O 2013 graduate should be fungible from the perspective of a recruiter, but they're not. The former has a scarlet letter on his resume, and people with lesser credentials from the next class will be hired over hi…
> "a C/O 2012 and a C/O 2013 graduate should be fungible from the perspective of a recruiter, but they're not." Assuming the 2012 grad doesn't have a year's experience, you don't think that the pool of those who have been passed over by hiring managers for the past year (as they presumably have) might be slightly less rich than the "fresh" pool of graduates from this year? If you were a hiring manager, would you spen…
The 2013 pool as a whole would be richer, but if you're in a situation where hiring was down dramatically in 2012 but picked up for 2013, then there will be candidates in 2012 that are better than the ones you would have to hire if you only limited yourself to 2013.
You can see this very clearly in numbers-driving hiring pipelines in finance, consulting, and law. This year's 50th percentile candidates are getting hired by the big companies, while last year's 70th percentile candidates are pushed entirely out of the market. You see the same phenomenon across the job market, though, just in less easily quantifiable ways.
Re: Frayed Prospects, Despite a Degree
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "a C/O 2012 and a C/O 2013 graduate should be fungible from the perspective of a recruiter, but they're not." Assuming the 2012 grad doesn't have a year's experience, you don't think that the pool of those who have been passed over by hiring managers for the past year (as they presumably have) might be slightly less rich than the "fresh" pool of graduates from this year? If you were a hiring manager, would you spen…
The 2013 pool as a whole would be richer, but if you're in a situation where hiring was down dramatically in 2012 but picked up for 2013, then there will be candidates in 2012 that are better than the ones you would have to hire if you only limited yourself to 2013. You can see this very clearly in numbers-driving hiring pipelines in finance, consulting, and law. This year's 50th percentile candidates are getting hir…
Seems like an inefficiency and a chance for a talented recruiter to get better talent.
Re: Frayed Prospects, Despite a Degree
#8Am I the only one who thinks that we reached a point of nearly maximum efficiency? Think about it, that would explain everything. The article clearly states that employers aren't interested in college graduates that finished two years ago if they didn't gather experience in the meantime. They'll happily hire the new kids straight out of college. If they can afford to pass over to thousands of graduates then it means…
It's not really efficiency, it's a lack of growth. Efficiency (producing more with each worker) doesn't itself reduce the demand for workers, because the economy usually just produces more in the aggregate to compensate. What's reducing the demand for workers is that it's just not attractive to expand within the U.S. If you've got some capital, you're going to get a much bigger return on that money in a less developed place like China or Brazil than you will here. There is just less competition and consumer expectations are lower.
Re: Frayed Prospects, Despite a Degree
#9Am I the only one who thinks that we reached a point of nearly maximum efficiency? Think about it, that would explain everything. The article clearly states that employers aren't interested in college graduates that finished two years ago if they didn't gather experience in the meantime. They'll happily hire the new kids straight out of college. If they can afford to pass over to thousands of graduates then it means…
We've reached a point where the limit of economic growth is no longer knowledge workers - it's entrepreneurs. After WW2, knowledge workers were the bottle neck, college degrees guaranteed jobs, and institutions, grants and MBA schools sprung up everywhere.
The key for new grads is understanding the supply and demand curve. Your career prospects are better if 1. your skills are in short supply or 2. if they're in great demand or both. When there's a glut of talent and it's cheap, form companies.
Re: Frayed Prospects, Despite a Degree
#10Am I the only one who thinks that we reached a point of nearly maximum efficiency? Think about it, that would explain everything. The article clearly states that employers aren't interested in college graduates that finished two years ago if they didn't gather experience in the meantime. They'll happily hire the new kids straight out of college. If they can afford to pass over to thousands of graduates then it means…
It's not really efficiency, it's a lack of growth. Efficiency (producing more with each worker) doesn't itself reduce the demand for workers, because the economy usually just produces more in the aggregate to compensate. What's reducing the demand for workers is that it's just not attractive to expand within the U.S. If you've got some capital, you're going to get a much bigger return on that money in a less develope…
I would be with you if goods production somehow halted and we weren't able to get our hand on those very goods:
less workers->less production->scarcity->unsatisfied demand->soaring prices
that simply isn't happening. It seems to me that organizations that previously employed tens thousands of workers are now doing just fine with way less than that.