May 28, 2008

Best educated or the best



Sanjay thinks that companies are besotted with educational brands and that shows how they don't think of performance on the job:

I even remember sitting in a conversation when a promotion was being discussed and there were two candidates one a great performer with great potential but from a so-called tier 2 institute and another one from a tier 1 institute but not as a great a performer or potential and most people seemed to favour the person from tier 1 insti.

I had a really difficult time arguing with the client team that the education is supposed to convert to performance on the floor which should entitle people to promotions and not the tag of the education alone, it definitely was quite a difficult conversation. One of the very strong criteria they had for promotion was the qualification a person carried.


Recruiters, hiring managers, HR professionals all help in perpetuating this myth.

Why? What's the point of being from a 'premier institute' if it does not add value to the organization?

Update: A commentator blames HR people. However, I'd like to place the majority of the blame on the hiring managers. If they say non-MBAs are to be considered then the recruiter/HR person has to abide by that unless they have a better reason to only look for MBAs

But this is not just about MBAs and non-MBAs, distinction between 'premier' and 'non-premier' campuses is hogwash!