Declan Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 I suppose it depends on what roles are being applied for. Obviously some roles depend on knowledge and skills in a specific area then absolutely qualifications in that area are needed. But for entry level roles? Is an 18 year old with 5 GCSEs who’s just messed up his A-Levels a better prospect than a twenty-one year old with 4 GCSEs and 3 years office experience? It makes sense to let the recruitment process determine which is the best prospect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 The way I see it there are qualifications and then there are qualifications. The likes of GCSE passes for jointing the Civil Service are really just to check the attitude and aptitude of the applicant. Realistically, pretty much anyone can get a C or better in any GCSE if they are willing to apply themselves. Getting such results can show a prospective employer that the applicant has a suitable attitude to work. Important qualifications are those that give someone specialist knowledge to do a specific task. I want my surgeon to be suitably qualified, I want my architect to be suitably qualified, I want my car mechanic to be suitably qualified and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lurker Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 The whole thing is fairly moot now as the new Equality Act basically means that unless a role demonstrably requires certain qualifications (think Doctor, Lawyer, Pilot etc) then you can’t demand that a candidate has particular qualifications. This; rightly in my opinion; ensures that individuals who may not have had the opportunity to pass exams as a youth can at the very least get a foot in the door. Any rigorous recruitment process can easily identify candidates that have the basic requirements of literacy and logic without relying on what exams they’ve passed. My firms’ recruitment involves a whole day that includes a dictation exercise, short essay writing and logic based problem solving tests amongst others before they get into an interview and the application forms themselves require a good level common sense to fill out correctly. In any organisation or company your staff are your biggest asset and your enterprise will thrive or die depending on their abilities and aptitude; it always makes me laugh when organisations rely on a simple application form and a short interview to recruit; they’re then surprised when someone turns out to be a chocolate-fireguard; ‘but they had four GCSE’s………..’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manximus Aururaneus Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 37 minutes ago, mojomonkey said: The way I see it there are qualifications and then there are qualifications. The likes of GCSE passes for jointing the Civil Service are really just to check the attitude and aptitude of the applicant. Realistically, pretty much anyone can get a C or better in any GCSE if they are willing to apply themselves. Getting such results can show a prospective employer that the applicant has a suitable attitude to work. Important qualifications are those that give someone specialist knowledge to do a specific task. I want my surgeon to be suitably qualified, I want my architect to be suitably qualified, I want my car mechanic to be suitably qualified and so on. I think that you are on the right lines here - some folk are getting confused between 'Qualifications' and 'Examinations'. You cannot really be 'Qualified in 'O' Level history'! If we are talking about basic exams like GCSE's then there is no reason why an equivalent 'Entrance Exam' could not be used as an alternative (unless you are looking for a bit of 'protectionism' of course ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 9 hours ago, dilligaf said: FFS. the temp was not a gov employee. She was paid by an agency if the job was only open to current government employees, you should have mentioned that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 1 minute ago, WTF said: if the job was only open to current government employees, you should have mentioned that. It seems to be standard practice to fill a vacancy internally if possible. Makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 Just now, P.K. said: It seems to be standard practice to fill a vacancy internally if possible. Makes sense. if it can be filled internally it shows that who ever gets the job wasn't doing a necessary job in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 6 minutes ago, WTF said: if it can be filled internally it shows that who ever gets the job wasn't doing a necessary job in the first place. They could have beeen but then changes in, say, legislation meant their post went south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 12 minutes ago, P.K. said: It seems to be standard practice to fill a vacancy internally if possible. Makes sense. Why does it make sense to exclude 80% of the population from the chance of getting some crappy IOMG job? They’re the taxpayers funding the salaries in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 6 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said: Why does it make sense to exclude 80% of the population from the chance of getting some crappy IOMG job? They’re the taxpayers funding the salaries in the first place. Because recruitment is surprisingly expensive. Plus someone who is already au fait with the organisation, working practices (hem hem) and so forth will be effective quicker than a newbie. ETA : plus you could hire a lemon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 2 minutes ago, P.K. said: Because recruitment is surprisingly expensive. Plus someone who is already au fait with the organisation, working practices (hem hem) and so forth will be effective quicker than a newbie. ETA : plus you could hire a lemon... It seems a bit like encouraging inbreeding to me. All you end up doing is shuffling the same incompetents around whilst actively barring anyone who might have a better work ethic / attitude / qualifications / perspective from getting a well paid job with an agency that their tax money actually funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 Just now, thesultanofsheight said: It seems a bit like encouraging inbreeding to me. All you end up doing is shuffling the same incompetents around whilst actively barring anyone who might have a better work ethic / attitude / qualifications / perspective from getting a well paid job with an agency that their tax money actually funds. Welcome to Public Service! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 12 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said: Why does it make sense to exclude 80% of the population from the chance of getting some crappy IOMG job? They’re the taxpayers funding the salaries in the first place. Because I'd rather not spend my time applying for a job where a strong candidate is in-house and it's only been advertised externally as a tick box exercise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PmJ Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 8 hours ago, P.K. said: Comment away. But it's not Dillis fault that she failed to meet the criteria. It doesn't smack of hypocrisy to me because agency staff are temps utilised until an appropriate candidate is found, frequently an internal move. The CS/PS just love their rulebooks.... Temps are placed in accordance with the qualifications they hold, my wife passed all of her secretarial exams with flying colours at college. We have had applicants apply to the firm I work for with degrees who have been unable to do some of the simplest tasks. But as you say, CS/PS love their rulebooks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 If someone is in a temp role within the government via an agency and the role is advertised "internal" only - are they able to apply for the permanent role. I know in the private sector temp to perm moves have lead to the recruitment of a lot of good staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.