Aug

2

 I found this article by Rory Sutherland quite on point.

"Why I'm Hiring Graduates with Thirds This Year":

It's hard to tell the difference between a university and a business school nowadays. Where are all the hippies, the potheads and the commies? And why is everyone so intently serious and sober all the time? "Oh, it's simple," a friend explained. "If you don't get a 2:1 or a first nowadays, employers won't look at your CV."

So, as a keen game-theorist, I struck on an idea. Recruiting next year's graduate intake for Ogilvy would be easy. We could simply place ads in student newspapers: 'Headed for a 2:2 or a third? Finish your joint and come and work for us.'

Let me explain. I have asked around, and nobody has any evidence to suggest that, for any given university, recruits with first-class degrees turn into better employees than those with thirds (if anything the correlation operates in reverse). There are some specialised fields which may demand spectacular mathematical ability, say, but these are relatively few.

So my game theoretic instincts suggest that if we confine our recruitment efforts to people in the lower half of the degree ladder we shall have an exclusive appeal to a large body of people no less valuable than anyone else. And such people will be far more loyal hires, since we won't be competing for their attention with deep-pocketed pimps in investment banking.

The logic is inarguable: the best people to hire (or date) are those undervalued by the market. (An expat friend of mine always dated Brooklyn girls for this reason: their accent seemed exotically alluring to him but was repellent to most New Yorkers.)


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search