Originally Posted by Chilehead
As an employer (like most here on Lawnsite), I would much rather hire somebody with 4 years experience and no college than 4 years of college and no experience. The former implies being educated via execution of said necessary job skills, whereas the latter implies being educated via dictation/reading in a controlled environment with little/no execution of said job skills.
A key example would be installing an irrigation system--very technical. Someone who is told how to assemble one vs. someone who is shown on the job how to assemble one (and then takes part in assembly) is the perfect metaphor for college vs. experience. Another example would be someone in sales--a field all businesses use. I can hire someone with a 6-year master's degree in business administration/marketing, or I can hire someone with a 6-year track record of competent sales closings. Which candidate poses less risk for my company, a newbie or a veteran? Which candidate can substantiate the ability to sell better, a newbie or a veteran? Have a great day!
I like the idea of educated people working for me, though I'd always expect them to move on to a higher paying job that better suited their degree-
education is always a good thing, though experience and wisdom go a VERY long way in my book--
I've seen lots of educated folks that couldn't find their way out of a paper bag--sometimes the education seems to trump what is important -
Although they have many facts in their heads, they cannot apply that knowledge and do something productive, efficient or useful-