Additional degrees, just because?

[mrs.b]

Since TESC will grant 2 associate degrees, along with 2 bachelors is it advisable to get the extra degrees?

I already have AAS (listed in sig), working on BS degree, however I am already eligible for the AA degree but not sure if and how it would or could benefit me. I'm a few classes short of the ASNMS via either Bio or Math but the classes I lack aren't necessary for the BSAST degree but would be more noticeable than just another AA.

Any advice or thoughts welcome!

To come at it from a different angle, part of the initial employment process for applicant selection is sorting through resumes. In the competitive job market, people get turned away all the time for being overqualified, so having options to list with honesty could have some benefit. If you want to niche yourself for a specific job, you can tailor your resume for that job, listing only the degree(s) relevant. If you have more options to choose from, that is more niche options at your disposal. You cannot/should not lie and say you have something you do not, but you can omit things you have because they're not relevant. Having a Masters or BA may put someone in the overqualified pile for a certain job, while an AA may fit the selection criteria just right. These days, some unemployed people with Masters or PhDs are needing to apply for jobs requiring a specific AA, and with so many applicants, employers can be choosy about exactly what minimum and maximum thressholds they'll look at further. By labeling the education section on the resume "Relevant Education," you're being entirely truthful and can, perhaps, make yourself a better fit for a specific job opening to get in the door.

[burbuja0512]

To come at it from a different angle, part of the initial employment process for applicant selection is sorting through resumes. In the competitive job market, people get turned away all the time for being overqualified, so having options to list with honesty could have some benefit. If you want to niche yourself for a specific job, you can tailor your resume for that job, listing only the degree(s) relevant. If you have more options to choose from, that is more niche options at your disposal. You cannot/should not lie and say you have something you do not, but you can omit things you have because they're not relevant. Having a Masters or BA may put someone in the overqualified pile for a certain job, while an AA may fit the selection criteria just right. These days, some unemployed people with Masters or PhDs are needing to apply for jobs requiring a specific AA, and with so many applicants, employers can be choosy about exactly what minimum and maximum thressholds they'll look at further. By labeling the education section on the resume "Relevant Education," you're being entirely truthful and can, perhaps, make yourself a better fit for a specific job opening to get in the door.

:iagree:

You've brought up a rather difficult topic. I've been in middle management for a while, so I've never had the opportunity to hire for the best positions, only entry-level to mid-level positions. I have consistently declined to interview candidates that were overqualified, but I have also found that I've been at odds with the company recruiter on my position.

What I mean by this is that the recruiter that I worked with in the past LOVED seeing a candidate with lots of education. The more possible letters behind their name, the more likely that he would send me their resume. So.. in order to get past the recruiter at my old company, you were better off to list every last bit of education.

However, once the resume got to me, the situation changed. I didn't want to hire someone for an entry or mid-level job that really belonged in a higher position. My thought was that if I were to hire someone with great education and a great resume for an entry-level job, that they would come in and work their hardest to get promoted as quickly as possible and you really can't blame them for doing this. I did want my employees to look for promotion opportunities, but I also expected at least an 18-month commitment for the job I was hiring them for. So... I didn't want to hire someone that would be unhappy with having to be in the same place for 18 months.

I guess this is a long story to say that the hiring game really is a game. If you list too much education, you risk being passed over by one person that thinks that the more education the better, regardless of what you're applying for. Then, the same resume could make you look over-qualified to another person that's also a part of the same hiring process.

I do want to add that the education in and of itself does not make someone over-qualified. IMHO, it's the combination of really good, relevant experience PLUS education that could make you overqualified. I've actually considered some people over-qualified candidates that didn't even have a degree if their previous jobs were really good, and ESPECIALLY if they have consistently made significantly more money than the position pays. I really don't want someone to take a 30-40% pay cut when they accept a job. It doesn't bode well for anyone if they can't pay their bills on what you'll be paying them.

[alleycat]

Burb,

I get what you are saying about people degrees and prior earnings. But I think alot of people are just thankful for having a job at this point. Or even getting hired. Its tough out there. I had a friend go for 5 interviews for a job at a cupcake shop. College grad that can't find a job.

[burbuja0512]

Burb,

I get what you are saying about people degrees and prior earnings. But I think alot of people are just thankful for having a job at this point. Or even getting hired. Its tough out there. I had a friend go for 5 interviews for a job at a cupcake shop. College grad that can't find a job.

Yes that is very sad but true. It's why people now will say anything to get hired anywhere, but from a hiring perspective, an applicants prior earnings are huge in B2B sales, which as you know, is where I'm at.

Salaries can vary WIDELY and if someone is used to earning 150k+ and I'm hiring for a 50k position, I know that they won't take the job seriously for much time at all. Many people would be thrilled to death to get the 50k job, and that's who I want to hire. I don't want to hire the 150k guy (or gal) that has to downgrade his lifestyle to work for me. I just don't think he'll do it. What is more likely is that he'll use my job to bring in a paycheck until one of the other resumes that he sent out comes through.... or he'll just use the opportunity to network with other people in my company to try to find a better job internally. Either way, he won't be the employee that I need. However, if I hire someone that has never earned anywhere near 50k, they'll treat the position with the respect it deserves. They'll be much more likely to give it their all because they'll be proud of their title rather than being embarrassed that they have to take a step down on their career ladder.

[mrs.b]

:iagree:

You've brought up a rather difficult topic. I've been in middle management for a while, so I've never had the opportunity to hire for the best positions, only entry-level to mid-level positions. I have consistently declined to interview candidates that were overqualified, but I have also found that I've been at odds with the company recruiter on my position.

What I mean by this is that the recruiter that I worked with in the past LOVED seeing a candidate with lots of education. The more possible letters behind their name, the more likely that he would send me their resume. So.. in order to get past the recruiter at my old company, you were better off to list every last bit of education.

However, once the resume got to me, the situation changed. I didn't want to hire someone for an entry or mid-level job that really belonged in a higher position. My thought was that if I were to hire someone with great education and a great resume for an entry-level job, that they would come in and work their hardest to get promoted as quickly as possible and you really can't blame them for doing this. I did want my employees to look for promotion opportunities, but I also expected at least an 18-month commitment for the job I was hiring them for. So... I didn't want to hire someone that would be unhappy with having to be in the same place for 18 months.

I guess this is a long story to say that the hiring game really is a game. If you list too much education, you risk being passed over by one person that thinks that the more education the better, regardless of what you're applying for. Then, the same resume could make you look over-qualified to another person that's also a part of the same hiring process.

I do want to add that the education in and of itself does not make someone over-qualified. IMHO, it's the combination of really good, relevant experience PLUS education that could make you overqualified. I've actually considered some people over-qualified candidates that didn't even have a degree if their previous jobs were really good, and ESPECIALLY if they have consistently made significantly more money than the position pays. I really don't want someone to take a 30-40% pay cut when they accept a job. It doesn't bode well for anyone if they can't pay their bills on what you'll be paying them.

I agree with everything you've said. It is a constant debate between recruit staff and management in my company as well. I have an odd position of being in a HR staff role that also has direct responsibility to an operations management chain (also do general Office Manager tasks and direct operations/project management). I see both sides, and flip flop between preferences depending on the hat I'm wearing at the time. From my HR-hat perspective, I would love for someone to come in with all the qualifications plus more, but the management I work with has always had the same position you described. From my perspective, the more qualifications the better, because that's someone we can get in, get familiar with the company and processes, and have ready for promotion when higher positions come available (I would rather hire externally for entry-level and promote from within, than hire externally for upper positions.) They do not want to have to go through the hiring and interview process again in a month or two when that individual applies for and gets an internal management position or takes the job they really wanted elsewhere (i.e., just use us for a paycheck to get out of the unemployment line, but keeps looking, and we pass up someone that would have stuck with it and been more dedicated to the job).

At the end of the day during the discussion phase, since I am staffing for the group they must deal with on a daily basis, I'll recommend all day long that they take the better-qualified person when we're setting up the screening materials prior to making an external job post, but when the resumes start flowing in I screen with the criteria they dicate. That usually includes a qualification maximum limit. People do get declined on initial screen based upon a few extra letters behind their names when they're not requested.

I think my ultimate point (sorry for the rambling!) is, you never know what's going to come up in the future. If you're ever in the tough situation so many people are today of applying for jobs beneath your qualifications, having a lower-tier degree so you can honestly cite it is better than not having it, particularly when it isn't going to cost anything / much more because of a higher degree. Few recruiters are going to dismiss a resume that exactly meets the requested qualifications, no matter how internal promotion-minded they are. In personal experience, though, people are only slightly more likely to be declined for underqualification than overqualification. The latter depends on how much freedom the screener was given with selection screen criteria.

[dcan]

I am looking at getting a second BS. First, after talking to a rep from TESC, I am only 18 credit hours away from accomplishing that feat. Second, if I get out of the Air Force I may not be able to get a job in training and development which is what my first BS is in. I am looking at getting a BSAST with a concentration in aviation. With this BSAST and my military background being in aeronautics, this will definitely give me more options and marketability. To each his own. I am definitely going to begin my path to graduate degree in 2012. I just want to be as marketable as I can be as of Independence Day 2012, which is also my seperation date.

Way to run with a plan! :patriot:

I've got a couple NCOs who I can't get into a CCAF degree if I put a gun to their heads. (of course I can't talk much, I just finished mine, but at least I'm trying to drag them with me)

I plan to get the AAS Environmental/Safety/Security as well, since I already have everything covered from CCAF and testing, except for 10 or 11 more FEMAs. I like learning about it and my wife and I volunteer with the local county EMA now, so it's relevant as well. Figured for a few hundred an extra degree can't be bad.

[rhapsodyinblue]

Way to run with a plan! :patriot:

I've got a couple NCOs who I can't get into a CCAF degree if I put a gun to their heads. (of course I can't talk much, I just finished mine, but at least I'm trying to drag them with me)

I plan to get the AAS Environmental/Safety/Security as well, since I already have everything covered from CCAF and testing, except for 10 or 11 more FEMAs. I like learning about it and my wife and I volunteer with the local county EMA now, so it's relevant as well. Figured for a few hundred an extra degree can't be bad.

I try to get everyone to do the CCAF as well. With all of our training and completion of ALS, everyone is only 5 classes/CLEPS/DSST away from being awarded the CCAF. Without ALS, I believe you would be considered 7 classes/tests, 2 of those classes/test must be in management/leadership. It's hard to get someone to start. From my experience, most AF members do not value education or the educational benefits the military provides.

[ryoder]

I am planning on getting a PhD in business administration but do not have the desire to manage people at this point in time.
I think that I can act as a consultant and make lots of money without having to approve vacations, perform reviews, handle personality conflicts, provide coaching and mentoring and all of those things that are better left to people with psychology and HR degrees in my opinion.
I want to focus on strategic management direction, product development, architecture and other long-term planning projects and leave the people management and day-to-day project management to others.

Is this too much to ask?

[dcan]

I try to get everyone to do the CCAF as well. With all of our training and completion of ALS, everyone is only 5 classes/CLEPS/DSST away from being awarded the CCAF. Without ALS, I believe you would be considered 7 classes/tests, 2 of those classes/test must be in management/leadership. It's hard to get someone to start. From my experience, most AF members do not value education or the educational benefits the military provides.

This is so true. I see it a lot. I know that the issue for me also was fear of failing a CLEP because I didn't know what to study. I had several false starts over the years to try and CLEP but never knew what to study, and the base libraries didn't really have anything directly for it. I got this same response from one of my guys, just fear of failing a test, and fear of failing a class and having to pay back the TA. And he already took years ago the two that everyone avoids (college algebra and public speaking) as B&M classes first, so he doesn't even have that cloud over him. I think a lot just comes down to fear of changing the inertia, just like others report on the site here.

Well, that and having to choose between paying for education or paying to check out at the Class Six. You know damn well how 90% are going to choose in that case! milelol:

Good news: One of them signed up for two classes today!

[dcan]

I am planning on getting a PhD in business administration but do not have the desire to manage people at this point in time.
I think that I can act as a consultant and make lots of money without having to approve vacations, perform reviews, handle personality conflicts, provide coaching and mentoring and all of those things that are better left to people with psychology and HR degrees in my opinion.
I want to focus on strategic management direction, product development, architecture and other long-term planning projects and leave the people management and day-to-day project management to others.

Is this too much to ask?

So you can give them the idea and when it fails it's obviously because of poor execution?

I like you already. :roflol: