- NEW!
Help answer this question below.
Neither - I think pay should be based on productivity and dependability. The better job you do, the more pay. And doing a good job should not have to be such a subjective matter. People who are where they are supposed to be when they are supposed to be there, doing what they are supposed to be doing should be earning more than those who slack off at every opportunity, abuse a liberal leave policy, and repeated have to be told how to do their job.
Experience should be the primary salary setter with education taken into consideration. From the point of hire forward, any pay raises should be based on MERIT ONLY -- not on longevity or how much a$$kissing one does.
I think it should be based on how well you do the job. Some experienced people are lazy and do only enough to keep the job and some well qualified people are inept when it comes to doing their jobs. Give me competence over qualification any day.
Experience then Education but even the highest education does not replace experience .
Experience!
Experience. It is only right.
Experience. Education is nice, but when not put into practical use, doesn't matter one bit. I'll take those 30 years work experience over a 4-year degree any day.
Oops duplicate, sorry.
Education should get you in the door, experience should keep you there and you should be paid based off of how well you preform. I guess experience.
Those are bad ways to pay people. It doesn't matter how they were educated or where, even how much if they can't do the work. Or they could be very experienced and still be a horrible worker. Pay by work and output in any form.
Both.
It depends on the position. My manager has a 2 yr business degree & she doesn't know jack about the job. I have been here for about 3 yrs. & I KNOW that I could handle her job, but since I do not have the college degree, they won't promote me. Education helps but you need hands on experience to do a job well. My branch manager knows what I can do for the company because whenever I go on vacation, my department (which consists of 4 people) falls to pieces. He told me that he wished that he could promote me (yeah right) but since I do not have the degree, he cannot.
Well, I know that whenever I look for a job, most of the higher paying places require at least a year's experience, even for a normally mundane job. It's really difficult because where I live, the cost of living is so high that I can't live off a minimum wage job.
Pay should be based off experience more than education. Sure, someone who's taken the classes may have a better overall view however depending on the job only certain aspects are usually used. Anyone who has worked the job is going to know the ins and outs along with the practical application, which is often of more use than theory.
Example: Who would you rather have make your wedding cake, some one fresh out of culinary school or your local baker with a GED who's been making cakes for 10 years?
Education is a great background but is no substitution for experience. Salaries should reflect this.
Good question...I had a job teaching special needs kids to swim and learn water safety. I had been doing this for about 5 years when they decided that someone with a degree would be better suited. Every autistic kid I taught has different personalities ( as do we ) and I knew from experience which child could be touched and what would set them off. I knew which one liked my soft voice and which one didn't want to hear any voice but they just wanted to sit on the edge of the pool and play with the water. Bringing in and replacing me for someone who had a diploma was wrong...they couldn't and didn't do a better job than I did. They made more money than I did doing the same job....and then they quit because they couldn't handle the kids.
Of course both.
But if I'm the employer and I really have to choose one over the other, I would have to place a premium on experience.
Education is almost purely theoretical, while experience is, for the most part, theory plus actual practice.
Starting pay should be experience, but it should be a combo of education, experience, and effort.
Both
experience of course.
Education tells you how trainable a person is.
Experience tells you how much they will need to trained.
Many other factors like ambition, attitude and efficiency have the greatest impact in the long run.
A person with more experience requires less training and is usually more effective at solving problems. However, education is in some ways a type of experience.
Experience
BUT you should gain that experience while gaining your education!
What is the highest salary for a linguist?
by Answerbag Staff on July 1st, 2010
| 1 person likes this
What does IQR mean?
by Answerbag Staff on June 27th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Who pays more, the Army or the Marines?
by Answerbag Staff on July 1st, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Why would you get a real job when you could just learn to count cards and make tons of money off of casinos?
by AgentGriswald on October 21st, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Do you get paid for working?
by XT on November 15th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Do you think that pay should be based off experiance or education?
Comments
You're the one I want to run my company!
by LynfromNM on September 25th, 2007
Thanks, Lyn. I approached my boss a few weeks ago about a pay raise and was told the head of my department is working on an across-the-board raise for all of us. I think that sucks because there are only a few of us who actually DO the WORK, but merit raises have been abolished in state government because some workers feel it discriminates against those who don't 'merit'. My thought? Try getting off your butt and working a little harder!!
*rant over*
by Smart2 is back! Did you miss me? on September 25th, 2007
I hear you, and I think your rant is entirely called for. I work for a federally funded non-profit so a lot of the same management philosophies apply. One of my co-workers has been on vacation this entire month and I am her back-up. The Exec. Director has been very concerned that I would be swamped because I am doing her work and mine. Guess what? I can't tell any difference!
by LynfromNM on September 25th, 2007
Time to eliminate her job and increase your salary, I say!!
by Smart2 is back! Did you miss me? on September 25th, 2007
Wow... they've eliminated merit raise because it discriminates? Um... that's kind of the whole purpose!
by Stableboy on September 25th, 2007
yep - rewarding good work and no reward for bad work - what a novel concept!
('scuse my sarcasm, but the whole thought just burns my toast!)
by Smart2 is back! Did you miss me? on September 25th, 2007
I support getting fired for no work or bad work. Is it as hard to get fired in the private sector?
by LynfromNM on September 25th, 2007
It's quite easy to get fired in the private sector! At least in most companies. That's natural selection at work :)
by Stableboy on September 25th, 2007
Depending on what race, sex, or nationality you are, it is virtually impossible to get fired in state government. Or at least the state I'm in.
But most of us are now in "at will" employment states, which means you can be fired for any reason - or no reason. So why aren't people fired for the multitude of reasons they create for themselves? I just don't get it ...
by Smart2 is back! Did you miss me? on September 25th, 2007
Well I can understand the need in government jobs to have structures and processes which ensure fairness: when taxpayer money is paying salaries, the values of the country as a whole are relevant -- we want state employees to be treated fairly. But we also want value for our dollars, and that means being able to discharge someone who is dead weight or underperforming. So there's a middle ground between "any manager can fire any of their staff without appeal", and "nobody can fire anybody".
by Stableboy on September 25th, 2007
Me neither, and yet our taxes pay these salaries. Incidentally, I'm on my lunch hour :)
by LynfromNM on September 25th, 2007