Thursday, July 07, 2016

Because a Masters in Human Resources Just Isn't Enough

Apparently you need a senior certification to be a gossipy, power-tripping, HR lady.  I guess in addition to handwriting analysis and asking "Where do you see yourself in 3 years" this certification teaches you the ability to judge good employees by looking at their shoes and the color of their ties.

I'll say it again for the cheap seats.  Ladies, if you want a real job, one where you don't constantly have to be going to school for the rest of your life, getting CPE's and progressive credentialism, you need to major in STEM.


Anonymous said...

$475 exam fee, $75 non-refundable application fee.

Screw STEM, just find a way to sell certs. They seem to be in high demand.

liberranter said...

Ladies, if you want a real job, one where you don't constantly have to be going to school for the rest of your life, getting CPE's and progressive credentialism, you need to major in STEM.

Alas, no. STEM fields are becoming jyst as obsessed with degrees and credentials as other, more useless fields and the degrees and credentials valued by many of these STEM fields mean just as little in terms of practical, useful application.

Anonymous said...

why should they go into STEM when a good chunk of those jobs will be for present and future immigrants which demand the least amount of money for their work?
why don't you leave women to women, and let them save themselves. God only knows, male version of 'saving' usually involves a crapton of damage first.

Chemist said...

Educational institutions are supposed to actually believe what they say about education always being worth the cost and it being the key to future success. If they don't then they are hypocrites. Let's look at this 'HR Certificate Institute' and see if they actually believe in the value of higher education...

Under 'eligibility' they state that individuals must have a high school diploma and 7 years work experience OR a bachelor's degree and 5 years work experience. Right there they equate a bachelor's degree, which takes up 4 years of your life and potentially a load of debt, to 2 years work experience. The other option is to have a master's degree and 4 years work experience. Here they equate a second typically 2 year full-time degree and additional debt to 1 year of work experience.

If the key to success is really education, they why do they equate work experience as being 2X the value of an education. Does this mean they think you are better 'valued' if you don't go to university and instead get a job right after high school? Perhaps not all educational institutes really believe that education is the key to success and are instead just a bunch of hypocrites? So what are their real thoughts on the value of this 'HR certificate'. Do they themselves think that it is really worth your time and money to pursue?

Tucanae Services said...

Hate to lay it on you cappy but credentials have been a huge part of engineering for a Looooooong time. For example. Any building of exceptional size requires a PE stamp on the drawings. No stamp, no building. Been that way before the Empire State building was erected. Any civil engineer without a PE is a second class citizen.

Blinding Buddha said...

Next you going to tell me that they can read minds and speak in tongues!! Lol

Nicholas Petitt said...

Ah, progressive credentialing, is a huge problem. The problem with CPE requirements is that they have those in valid fields, even like in Nursing or in Accounting.

Unknown said...

Back in my "practice law" days, I had a client who as a "sales/marketing diretor" for a major electronics firm (GE as I vaguely recall) attained much success by teaching medical technicians how to use the equipment his company manufactured, i.e., he took a page from IBM salesman Ross Perot (who created EDS and became the wealthiest man in the country for a while). His initial motivation was that it was easier for his sales workers to sell products to customers who at least knew the names of the parts and pieces their hospitals were buying for their use. When the idea took off he went into the "teaching continuing education courses" business.

He once told me it was too complicated to create "uniform standards" since most standards had already been set by the "big boys", and the small independents in the field were too entrepreneurial (lone rangers he called them!) to think that anything which benefited their competitors could benefit them also. Its part of the entrepreneurial profile to be guided by the principle (or illusion to those lacking in grasp of ontology) that "I'm unique".

Having taken one of my college courses wherein we covered the practical politics of why government mandated marriages licenses came into being, he approached me with the bright idea of using government to create the demand for his educational business.

One particular project I recall working on with him was trying to get California to license bar tenders. While the initial licensing could make a few dollars for the governments, the ongoing continuing education (how to recognize when a drunk is drunk) (we had the Dramshop Act at that time) could make recurrent millions for decades.

Interestingly, it was none other than our moonbeam Governor Jerry Brown early in his tenure the first time he was governor that nixed the idea. Given the loony left's love affair with registration, regulation and antagonism of entrepreneurship, that idea might even fly today.