Education Vs. Experience Part 1: Which Is More Valuable?

***Updated for 2024***

*NOTE: This is Part 1 of a series on education vs experience.*

For years now, there has been an argument brewing on this website and the various posts which adorn it. It is true that I have an ax to grind against the cultural tide. While not anti-college, I most certainly am anti “you have to go to college to get a good job.” As stated elsewhere, I find the practice akin to America’s cultural hazing. That post can be found by clicking here.

Even so, an astute reader should be able to detect thin and veiled references to something more important, more fundamental, and more diametrically opposed propositions. When the dots are connected, the picture is made clearer for those who lack imagination. What is that picture, exactly? What am I alluding to?

Sit under the shade tree of wisdom and understand what experience has to offer

Simply put, much of what is written on these pages dealing with the skilled trades invariably pits education against experience. Looking back over my writings for the past few years, I can see the threads of this argument and discussion, sewing a nice and neat package that is rife for discussion. Does it merit introspection? Absolutely. What are we to say about the youthful, the ambitious, the college degree holders, and lastly, those with experience?

 

Education and Experience

 

I’ll simply state my point right out the gate: I am of the opinion, and have been for years now, that experience is to be valued over education. Detractors may argue that the educated gain experience after obtaining a degree (for that is how I view the “education” often referenced) and, therefore, possess both.

Meh. I’m not buying it, personally. The main reason, and it is a fairly simple one, to be honest, is that experience IS education. Anyone who says otherwise is disingenuous.

 

 “Experience: that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God, do you learn.”

 

I won’t quibble over who the author is or might be because it doesn’t matter; they are smoke and mirrors at this point. What matters is that it’s true. Additionally, I’ll say history is replete with individuals who failed time and time again, gaining experience along the way. If you’ve only got “formal” education in your toolbox, you really don’t know the power of experience – but companies do. When you weigh out what companies pay in the education vs. experience realm, experience wins out big. That’s because they intrinsically know the value of each. Education may be a hurdle they use but experience they cannot do without.

Let’s look at an example that will bring more clarity to the point above. The trend for several years now is to extend large monetary offers to those close to retirement – to keep them on and use their knowledge and experience as long as possible. I have also seen many individuals retire and, while still drawing a retirement, also get paid large sums to entice them to stay on, allowing companies to lean on their experience a little while longer (and prolong their entrance into a season of change that will inevitably take place). I have seen this practice become quite contentious and divisive, too. Over the past 20 years, this practice has grown exponentially – and it’s not just limited to the skilled trades, either. Many other occupations also practice this very same tactic. The military is but one example of this. I know people who retired from the military, transitioned to civilian life, employed by private firms doing the same thing they were doing in the military – at a much higher pay rate AND collecting retirement. Yes, It happens because it could happen (Murphy’s law), but also because an atmosphere of experience is desirable. So much so companies are fostering the environment, clinging to experience.

What’s more, this practice will expand in the coming decade as the latter half of the baby boomer generation retires and all that experience vacates. Mark my words.

Compare that to those who lack experience but hold a degree. The number one thing I have observed when companies are faced with having to change is they offer new talent less than what those experienced persons make. You might say this is par for the course. Perhaps it is. The takeaway, though, is companies clearly value experience over education. Education is used as a threshold (which, as stated above, is a hazing rite many partake and participate in), but experience reigns supreme.

Additionally, I have heard another trend that seems to become more commonplace as the years pass. I have talked with people across the career spectrum over the years: government, industry, commercial, large corporations, etc. Time and time again, I have been told they, the current job holders, wouldn’t be able to get the very job they currently have based on the qualifications their jobs require. The reason? The job descriptions have been modified/extended/distorted/added to after they got the job and the outcome is as stated above. I find this fascinating. Who on earth has decided to make job requirements “more stringent” so that you ultimately limit your own prospects – to the point those who even hold the position currently couldn’t obtain it?

Oh, and here’s a caveat many don’t know: most of those who are retiring have little in the way of formal education at the collegiate level – and some didn’t even graduate from high school. Their experience, however, speaks volumes. I have met people who, although lacking a “formal” education, were supervisors over those with college degrees. Yet, for many positions now, companies want to set the threshold at the bachelor’s degree at a minimum. I have worked in just about every industry available in construction (industrial, manufacturing, chemical, nuclear, etc.) and have seen it time and time again: those with the least amount of formal education were in charge, while those more formally educated worked under them. The reason? They had the experience.

 

Education and Experience requirements

 

Ever taken a comprehensive look at job postings? Perhaps you’ve browsed LinkedIn’s job offers that fit your profile. Maybe you’ve been the object of headhunting (click here for my post on headhunting and its growing popularity) and paid attention to the job requirements. Could it be that you used the Internet to find jobs close to your level of experience? Or maybe you just called the hall for work (for those in a union)?

In most of the examples above, there are specific requirements the job posting requires a candidate to have. I’d like to look at two: the education and experience pieces. For both of these two requirements, I am going to use actual requirements for a job – in this case, a Construction Manager. While these are actual requirements from actual postings, I will be ambiguous enough so they (the companies) remain unknown.

 

Education Requirements

Educational requirements have been used as hurdles for years

First, let’s look at some of the educational requirements.

• I’m looking at one right now that deems a master’s degree (plus 5 years of experience) or a bachelor’s degree (plus 8 years of experience) as their educational requirement. Note the degrees are not specified – you only have to have one. Intriguing.
• I see one where a high school education or GED is the educational requirement.
• I note another with a B.S. or M.S. in Civil Engineering or related field.
• Yet another asks for a bachelor’s degree in construction science, building science, construction engineering, or a related field (preferred, not required).
• Still, another company wants a bachelor’s degree in engineering, project management, construction management, business, or related field.

I find the above interesting, to say the least. I’ll save my personal opinion for later and only add here that superintendents, typically the ones with the large store of experience, are the ones who are boots on the ground and run much of the project in the field.

 

Experience Requirements

 

I’ll go back over the job postings from above, and post the experience requirements in the same order so you can compare.

• The first one coupled experience with education: 5 years with a master’s and 8 years with a bachelor’s. (I wonder how you get the experience?)
• The second one requires 6 + years of experience in roadway and bridge construction inspection, along with a host of credentials (for bridge jobs).
• Next, we see them asking for a minimum of fifteen (15) years of experience in heavy civil infrastructure construction.
• Next, we find a minimum of four (4) years of progressively responsible job site experience working on industrial building projects.
• The last one requires a minimum of 18 years of managing large projects.

I’m more inclined to accept the above experience requirements – minus the educational mandate. The best terminology is “preferred but not required.” Of course, companies have the wherewithal to impose what they want. If they are content with limiting themselves, who am I to argue?

In many cases, companies are attempting to capitalize on someone else having paid for the experience and training. They want their cake and eat it, too; headhunting at its best. Hey, I’m not mad at them. I completely understand the reasons behind this. I’d only add they do themselves a disservice by limiting prospects but again, who am I to quibble against that?

 

Related: Read Headhunting and its Increase in the Workforce

 

What I can do, though, is write about not only how it doesn’t make sense but also highlight the experience component – and how it is far more valuable. I’ll do this in a few ways, starting with the education requirements and the breakdown.

 

Education and the breakdown

Online learning, anyone?

If we break down the above requirement and component, it actually highlights a major point I have argued for sometime now. Namely, that it is classes, and not degrees, which enhance an individual and you can find that post here.

What do I mean?

Well, if you do not want to read the article, let’s think about Construction Management for a moment. How will Calculus be used, much less an advantage in that role? What about Ordinary Differential Equations? Or what about Chemistry and Physics?

The simple answer is they won’t be used and/or advantageous (except in being able to say you took those classes).

Do you know what classes can be beneficial and advantageous for the Construction Manager? Contract Documents, Planning and Scheduling, Blueprint reading and Building Codes, AUTOCAD, Construction Materials, Estimating, etc. Many degrees have inflated classes that will not be used later in various careers while simultaneously omitting classes that could have been useful. I retain my opinion as to why this is, but the point remains, nonetheless.

To their credit, some colleges are tailoring degrees toward construction management (for the purpose of our example) but a quick peruse of the curriculum still contains classes unnecessary. Alas, I’m inclined to follow this rabbit trail further, but I need to get back to the main point.

*NOTE: Since the pandemic, colleges have found it difficult to adapt. I was doing some research and came across a Wall Street Journal article discussing how colleges were going to have to adapt and change the way they do things, reach degrees, etc. For my part, I agree and thought it was worth posting – and the post can be found here. *

 

I have much to say here, but one of the more prominent points I want to highlight is (regarding the educational component being used as a threshold) “At what cost – employee and employer?” The employee likely entered college under the influence of “college is the only viable pathway to get a good job,” and it is just as likely they have a pile of nonbankruptcy debt to boot. The employer has been told (by colleges and others complicit in America’s favorite cultural hazing experience) that qualified and competent employees are found in the graduated ranks of colleges. When hired on, however, companies are finding out they have to train their new employees for the tasks they hired them to do. Shocking, I know. This begs the question: are colleges the fertile experienced grounds they claim to be?

The question is rhetorical; I think we already know the answer.

Still, we would be wise to understand the implications here. Education – at the formal level, anyway – while pushed by many, is inferior to education on the job. This brings me to another idea I feel the need to expound upon in this post.

 

Companies want something for nothing

 

When you see a job posting requiring lots of experience or even the basic hurdle of a college degree, what are we to say? What does it mean, exactly? I have an idea that may not be widely understood, but I believe it to be true nonetheless: companies want something for nothing.

OK, I hear ya: what does that mean?

In the past, companies would provide workforce training for those within their ranks. It was par for the course, mutually benefitting companies and individuals alike. Recall this was during the era when a person would stay with the same company for decades.

In the current climate, though, things are not the same. Tenure at a company has dramatically reduced. This has presented companies with recruitment issues they previously didn’t have to deal with. How did companies overcome this?

One of the ways they’ve tried is through college recruitment. Colleges promised a well-rounded curriculum, ensuring well-rounded graduates. There was no need for companies to provide training when colleges could provide it for them – or so the story goes.

It hasn’t proven to be the fix they were searching for, however. Companies had their ears tickled by hearing this and bit down hard. To be fair, they were part of the deception since they wanted to believe it as much as the other party wanted to sell it. Companies were eager to relinquish their obligations to new employees to another entity and fooled themselves into thinking they were getting a great deal. As time would inevitably tell, though, it wasn’t.

This decades-long experiment has been revealing to say the least. Companies have discovered there really is no shortcut for in-house training. An entire generation has enslaved themselves to enormous debt. An entire industry has suffered with a stigma – and now has a shortage that grows daily.

This poses a question: how do we get past this shortage and move forward with a correct course of action?

 

The future of education/experience

 

I think this is a good place to end this post. I wasn’t planning on writing a two-part essay, but the more I dig into this issue, the more I can see I can’t do it justice with just one. Part 2 will deal with, among other things, what I believe is the future of education/experience and how the two are weighed in the balance.

*NOTE: This is Part 1 of a series on education vs experience.*