Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Online Degrees

It is that mentality that concerns me. The quickness to overlook inexpensive, youthful talent kills me. I am willing to do the work of a senior artist for less, just because I don't have things like mortgage payments and children to take care of.

The bottom line is efficiency and profit, no?

People who have paid for less expensive schools yet can show on paper they are just as capable as "High End" contenders- should get a shot. I don't know, the thought winds me up and gets me angry. Sorry FMR, your original post sort of struck a nerve, but nothing personal

I have seen the online programs that friends of mine are in and they simply are not up to the caliber of a traditional college. The programs and the courses seemed less academically rigorous than the ones I had, and you simply don't have the degree of interaction you do in a live environment. Non-course related personal growth also occurs to a greater degree when one is absorbed in the campus life.

Think of how much more interaction we have at meets than here online in a concentrated span of time. The same principles apply (directed to the purpose of education) with a real traditional college education.

Of course. Again, I completely agree. The employer simply needs to see past the piece of paper- and maybe the otherwise "screened" candidate might actually be a better communicator than the brick and mortar, 4 yr candidate. Something along those lines I guess.

I totally agree that in an ideal world, every candidate would get an interview, and the best person chosen regardless of formal education. However, in the real world, you're lucky if you get a real person even looking at your resume.

Choosing the applicants you interview and eventually hire is a major gamble by the company. History has shown them the odds of getting the right person (not necessarily the best in any rated category, but the best for them) is from those with a traditional degree.

Someone like sigma getting to go through the resumes is even not assured in many companies. They cut out the first swath of applicants electronically before a human even gets to make determinations. Again, it's not ideal, but it's frequently the only feasible way for companies to wade through the pile of potentially thousands of applicants.

I'd say luck plays the biggest role in a job search without a doubt. Unless you're applying for a job that few people are and the can interview everyone, it's always gonna come down to at least a little "luck" in whether you get in the interview pile or the circular file.

But there is of course more to a resume than your education. "Harvard" doesn't mean diddily if the rest of your resume sucks. There's something to be said (actually a LOT to be said) for a well-written, well-formatted resume that contains more about you and your relevant experience ("relevant" being the key word) than about what your GPA was. If your resume looks like it was created for my position and not something you just mass-broadcast on every remotely interesting position on Monster.com, I'm exponentially more likely to interview you if you're even remotely qualified. If you're willing to take the time to personalize a resume and show that you really want the position, I'm very willing to take some of my time to interview you if I can.

Believe me, I've been marred by the Anti-ITT fanclub My portfolio is what separates me from the rest.

When you say to write a resume that seems to be written for your (the interviewers) position- isn't that an excessive amount of information? I thought unless you have 5+ years experience, to not have anything longer than a page? Or do you mean simply formatting and keywords being "best" for the position?