Is University of Phoenix a Diploma Mill?

Interesting study was done on who became the millionaires from the high school class... The shocking findings are, that more millionaires come from the smart guys in the third row than the obviously 'going to grad school' types in the first two rows... They go to work and learn a trade, then by their 40's they own a small business doing plumbing, concrete, electrical, scrap yard, car washes, etc. with 4 to 10 full time employees.. By their late 40's to early 50's they have a net worth in excess of a million dollars... Most wear blue jeans, drive a pickup, and eat at places like Applebee's, Hooters, etc...
The house builder in my small town who fits these findings just ordered a quarter million dollar Cigarette boat and paid cash (in these financial times!) - but goes around in blue jeans, climbs on roofs to help the shingle crew, and drives a pickup...

denny-o
 
Possibly because construction was the major growth industry of the last decade, fueled by the scam mortgage trade. Most of the construction people I know aren't doing so great right about now.
 
A lot of it depends on how "millionaire" is defined. For instance, most farmers I know could be deemed millionaires because, guess what, large tracts of land are often worth more than $1M. But, many if not most farmers don't have a penny to their names.

So, there are a lot of people who are technically millionaires, if you count their net worths. But, if their net worths are comprised of assets that aren't particularly liquid (e.g., land, equipment, etc., unless you're willing to sell it at a serious loss), then they're not really millionaires. Just using the term "millionaire," of itself, isn't worth much.
 
steingar said:
Possibly because construction was the major growth industry of the last decade, fueled by the scam mortgage trade. Most of the construction people I know aren't doing so great right about now.
Click to expand...

Not at all the case; if you re-write your comment, substituting "homebuilding" in place of "construction," then you're closer to the mark.

Commercial construction is down - some - but is far, far from dead. Homebuilding has commercial construction aspects to it, but is a different beast entirely.
 
SCCutler said:
Not at all the case; if you re-write your comment, substituting "homebuilding" in place of "construction," then you're closer to the mark.

Commercial construction is down - some - but is far, far from dead. Homebuilding has commercial construction aspects to it, but is a different beast entirely.
Click to expand...

You raise a very good point, and it was indeed home construction that occupied my thoughts.
 
flyersfan31 said:
High level is a different story. My experience relates to newcomers -- both first job out of college, and first out of grad school. In that case, education is one of the only things you have to consider.

With higher-level hires, the experience comes to the forefront. Education is far less relevant. When we did recruiting for experience positions (which was much less common) clearly experience spoke the loudest.
Click to expand...

+1. If this is entry level, the quality of the cover letter and the education are generally what matter. If you are coming in from the entry level, and think you have a challenge with either of the aforementioned "winnowing" points, find a way to make a connection that trumps it. Face to face, recruiting event, anything.

I've had some trouble with people applying for jobs when they have an MBA, from places like Strayer and UoP, and lack the most basic financial skill set. Even meatball questions like "When do NPV and IRR give you differing investment signals, and why is this important?" go unanswered. I find it hard to believe one can get an MBA anywhere and not know how to answer such a question, especially when applying for a finance-heavy position (and the job posting indicates such).

Cheers,

-Andrew
who lacks even an undergraduate education
 
astanley said:
+1. If this is entry level, the quality of the cover letter and the education are generally what matter. If you are coming in from the entry level, and think you have a challenge with either of the aforementioned "winnowing" points, find a way to make a connection that trumps it. Face to face, recruiting event, anything.

I've had some trouble with people applying for jobs when they have an MBA, from places like Strayer and UoP, and lack the most basic financial skill set. Even meatball questions like "When do NPV and IRR give you differing investment signals, and why is this important?" go unanswered. I find it hard to believe one can get an MBA anywhere and not know how to answer such a question, especially when applying for a finance-heavy position (and the job posting indicates such).

Cheers,

-Andrew
who lacks even an undergraduate education
Click to expand...


Andrew:

Funny thing.

I have known many exceptionally well-educated (OK, well credentialed) people who could not reason their own way out of a brown paper bag in a rainstorm.

And I have known plenty of people who, lacking credentials, are the intellectual masters of conversations on many subjects.

You're an excellent example - I would not have called you out, but you volunteered: Your scope of knowledge about world affairs and economic principles, coupled with your exceptional communication skills, make you (in my mind) the equal of any MBA level B-school grad I've ever met (and I've met a lot, from a lot of high-snoot paper mills). You, Andrew, could laser-up a Wharton degree to hang on the wall, and no one, meeting you, would doubt it for a minute.

In fact, I am confident that, offered the chance to debate the best economists the current presidential administration could muster, you could place a great many picas on that bull, and look good doing it.

So what does that tell us?

I'd suggest, this: That a lack of imagination and initiative in the interview and hiring process will consign any business to results which are mired in mediocrity, cadres of yes-men and wo-men who have exceptionally high opinions of their own worth, and institutionally-ingrained senses of entitlement.
 
SCCutler said:
Andrew:

Funny thing.

I have known many exceptionally well-educated (OK, well credentialed) people who could not reason their own way out of a brown paper bag in a rainstorm.

And I have known plenty of people who, lacking credentials, are the intellectual masters of conversations on many subjects.

You're an excellent example - I would not have called you out, but you volunteered: Your scope of knowledge about world affairs and economic principles, coupled with your exceptional communication skills, make you (in my mind) the equal of any MBA level B-school grad I've ever met (and I've met a lot, from a lot of high-snoot paper mills). You, Andrew, could laser-up a Wharton degree to hang on the wall, and no one, meeting you, would doubt it for a minute.

In fact, I am confident that, offered the chance to debate the best economists the current presidential administration could muster, you could place a great many picas on that bull, and look good doing it.

So what does that tell us?

I'd suggest, this: That a lack of imagination and initiative in the interview and hiring process will consign any business to results which are mired in mediocrity, cadres of yes-men and wo-men who have exceptionally high opinions of their own worth, and institutionally-ingrained senses of entitlement.
Click to expand...

Cicero (as usual) said it best. I've forgotten the exact quote, but it was to the effect of: "a man of intelligence with no learning is worth far more than a man without intelligence and all the schooling in the world."
 
Well, lets hope its not. I'm starting classes a week from today.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Cicero (as usual) said it best. I've forgotten the exact quote, but it was to the effect of: "a man of intelligence with no learning is worth far more than a man without intelligence and all the schooling in the world."
Click to expand...

"Unrequited genius are legion..."

(Probably Patrick OBrien, in the Aubrey/Maturin series)
 
SkyHog said:
Well, lets hope its not. I'm starting classes a week from today.
Click to expand...
Congratulations! Are you planning to do the degree from them, or transfer the credits out? Either way, I trust you've made sure that all the requisite credits transfer and that you don't have problems getting any required transcripts!
 
gprellwitz said:
Congratulations! Are you planning to do the degree from them, or transfer the credits out? Either way, I trust you've made sure that all the requisite credits transfer and that you don't have problems getting any required transcripts!
Click to expand...

Yep! Almost all of my credits transferred, and I got the transcripts sent without issue (except for UNM....bastards are costing me an extra semester of school).

I'm doing a Bachelors in MIS. About 2 years left now, versus 1 semester left for an AS.
 
MIS?

Mis Information Science?

Meat Industries Systems?

Minimal Information studied?

Maximum Industry Sought?
 
SCCutler said:
I'd suggest, this: That a lack of imagination and initiative in the interview and hiring process will consign any business to results which are mired in mediocrity, cadres of yes-men and wo-men who have exceptionally high opinions of their own worth, and institutionally-ingrained senses of entitlement.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty sweeping generalization. Just curious -- would you hire someone who didn't graduate from college to be an attorney at your firm? Say, Jesse, perhaps?? I think you're hung up on the personal aspect of things here. Moreover, your thinking seems quite black/white. Pick person with good college degree, who will join the cadre of yes-men blah blah blah, or pick person without/with lousy college degree, who will zoom to stardom on the strength of their own brilliance.

No. Again, reread my posts (which seem to be generating the most controversy in this thread). One is attempting to winnow down a stack of 800 resumes for an interview list of, maybe, 20, for one position. Presumably, most of the 800 have a valid reason for submitting their resume. Hence, qualifications are largely comparable.

Even if, say, half of them are garbage, you still have another 400 roughly comparable people. Remember, this is before you interview. Do you have time to parse each resume to determine who was born a poor black sharecropper (that's a movie reference) but instead of being the Jerk has the wisdom and genius of Buffett? Or do you work off the information you have on the resume????

If you have PERSONAL knowledge, like you do about Jesse, then there is nothing to prevent you from incorporating that into your employment decision. I don't believe I indicated so one way or the other. Personal knowledge and references are usually the gold standard. I would question your hiring Jesse as a lawyer. I bet you could do better, no offense to Jesse, but he probably lacks suitable training (and yes, I know Abe Lincoln didn't go to law school but that was a different day and age). If you were looking for an MIS guy, then he's your guy.

If he doesn't know you, though, he is going to have to work harder to get his foot in the door, even for an MIS position. It's not right or wrong, good or bad, it just is. I'm sure there are many who can list accomplishments and experience similar to his, with a degree to go along with it. In the absence of any additional information with which to make a decision, he will be at a disadvantage in the hiring process. Again, it's not right or wrong, good or bad, it just is.

Nick -- good luck buddy. It's no fun dealing with college administration. Glad you're on your way.
 
flyersfan31 said:
That's a pretty sweeping generalization. Just curious -- would you hire someone who didn't graduate from college to be an attorney at your firm? Say, Jesse, perhaps?? I think you're hung up on the personal aspect of things here. Moreover, your thinking seems quite black/white. Pick person with good college degree, who will join the cadre of yes-men blah blah blah, or pick person without/with lousy college degree, who will zoom to stardom on the strength of their own brilliance.
Click to expand...


Hmmm....

I havent waded through hundreds of resumes in a while. Back when I was, I had living, breathing examples of the quality of various Software Engineering programs -- the people that already worked for me.

One summer I took a gamble on interns from a couple of Big Name CS programs.

While they were individually brilliant, they were nearly worthless as developers. They were all about rabbit holes, while I was all about solid deliverables on time and on budget.

So I think its fair to do a first cut based on some general factors -- school, experience, degree, length of employment at previous employers -- especially when you have more than a few dozen to wade through.

I attended a small, private college in Western NY and completed a BA in History in two years. That has scared more than one HR winnower, I'm sure.

(Last year when I was doing the job search thing one HR person called me after looking at my resume and asked, soemwhat incredulously -- "How did you do all this stuff?" I told her I don't sleep much).

:smilewinkgrin:
 
flyersfan31 said:
If he doesn't know you, though, he is going to have to work harder to get his foot in the door, even for an MIS position. It's not right or wrong, good or bad, it just is. I'm sure there are many who can list accomplishments and experience similar to his, with a degree to go along with it. In the absence of any additional information with which to make a decision, he will be at a disadvantage in the hiring process. Again, it's not right or wrong, good or bad, it just is..
Click to expand...

Andrew is absolutely, 100% right. Resumes represent a very particular view of one's career and abilities. When you lack a college degree, and your peers all have a MS, the game changes. You can't rely on the resume, because if the position is entry level for the level of education, then the education is going to be a prominent deciding factor, especially in "dense" job descriptions.

While we all know exceptions to the rule, and we all (those of us who manage hiring or people, at least) have our own individual styles, if we are in this situation, we will create factors that we can evenly, and without undue discrimination, apply. Mine are very simple: Cover letter, online application submission, answers to (from the application) targeted questions, resume review, and (lastly) military/education/life experience listed.

I know, that when I (Andrew) apply for jobs, that I have a hill to climb. So, I reach out, dig through the network, make sure the cover letter is bomb-proof, and make a connection within the hiring firm. It's painful, difficult, and can seem futile at times, but it pays off. Someone who is applying to an entry level job in my area would be well suited to do that -- show me that you are hungry, show me that you know something, and show me that you are willing -- that, to me, will put you back in the pile with the top tier school kids (because they showed those very characteristics through their education)

Who was it who said, "A man has to know his limitations?"

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
flyersfan31 said:
That's a pretty sweeping generalization. Just curious -- would you hire someone who didn't graduate from college to be an attorney at your firm? Say, Jesse, perhaps??
Click to expand...

Now c'mon- the analogy is not valid. A diploma is not the same thing as a license... but you knew that.


flyersfan31 said:
I think you're hung up on the personal aspect of things here. Moreover, your thinking seems quite black/white. Pick person with good college degree, who will join the cadre of yes-men blah blah blah, or pick person without/with lousy college degree, who will zoom to stardom on the strength of their own brilliance.
Click to expand...

Never said any such thing; merely said that applying a mathematically-precise, "no prestigious degree, no consideration" standard was not (in my view) wise. YMMV.

flyersfan31 said:
No. Again, reread my posts (which seem to be generating the most controversy in this thread). One is attempting to winnow down a stack of 800 resumes for an interview list of, maybe, 20, for one position. Presumably, most of the 800 have a valid reason for submitting their resume. Hence, qualifications are largely comparable.

Even if, say, half of them are garbage, you still have another 400 roughly comparable people. Remember, this is before you interview. Do you have time to parse each resume to determine who was born a poor black sharecropper (that's a movie reference) but instead of being the Jerk has the wisdom and genius of Buffett? Or do you work off the information you have on the resume????
Click to expand...

Not much to argue with there. Point is, unless you are hiring at pure entry-level, what they've done is a much better measure of qualification, than where they got their parchment.

flyersfan31 said:
If you have PERSONAL knowledge, like you do about Jesse, then there is nothing to prevent you from incorporating that into your employment decision. I don't believe I indicated so one way or the other. Personal knowledge and references are usually the gold standard. I would question your hiring Jesse as a lawyer. I bet you could do better, no offense to Jesse, but he probably lacks suitable training (and yes, I know Abe Lincoln didn't go to law school but that was a different day and age). If you were looking for an MIS guy, then he's your guy.
Click to expand...

Again, he's not a lawyer, so not such a useful analogy. It is still possible, in some states (California, I believe, is one such state) to "read" for the law, essentially being an apprentice, though I am not sure it's being done much anymore. If he had done so and had satisfied the requisites to become a lawyer, though, and had experience and references which suggested he'd be good, I might well be tempted to make the call for a face-look-talky session.

flyersfan31 said:
If he doesn't know you, though, he is going to have to work harder to get his foot in the door, even for an MIS position. It's not right or wrong, good or bad, it just is. I'm sure there are many who can list accomplishments and experience similar to his, with a degree to go along with it. In the absence of any additional information with which to make a decision, he will be at a disadvantage in the hiring process. Again, it's not right or wrong, good or bad, it just is.
Click to expand...

Again, nothing at all to disagree with there; these are new qualifications to the points being made, though.

flyersfan31 said:
Nick -- good luck buddy. It's no fun dealing with college administration. Glad you're on your way.
Click to expand...

x2.
 
You could be like me and have graduated from what you thought was a decent school and the only reaction is gets is raised eyebrows and giggles. Not that I care or that it's ever mattered. I think it's amusing too.
 
SCCutler said:
Never said any such thing; merely said that applying a mathematically-precise, "no prestigious degree, no consideration" standard was not (in my view) wise. YMMV.
Click to expand...

Nor did I.
 
SCCutler said:
Again, he's not a lawyer, so not such a useful analogy. It is still possible, in some states (California, I believe, is one such state) to "read" for the law, essentially being an apprentice, though I am not sure it's being done much anymore. If he had done so and had satisfied the requisites to become a lawyer, though, and had experience and references which suggested he'd be good, I might well be tempted to make the call for a face-look-talky session.
Click to expand...

Virginia is one, as well. I know two people down here who pulled it off, too.

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
flyersfan31 said:
Just curious -- would you hire someone who didn't graduate from college to be an attorney at your firm? Say, Jesse, perhaps??
Click to expand...
Uhm -- how is that a fair comparison? Hiring me as a lawyer would make no damn sense. Spike was not saying that one should hire someone completely unqualified and incapable -- he was saying that deciding if someone is capable solely based on the college they attended is a poor filter.
 
jesse said:
Uhm -- how is that a fair comparison? Hiring me as a lawyer would make no damn sense. Spike was not saying that one should hire someone completely unqualified and incapable -- he was saying that deciding if someone is capable solely based on the college they attended is a poor filter.
Click to expand...
Hmm.

On has 10 seconds to look over a resume for an entry level position. Each resume has similar useless college level job references i.e. pizza delivery, tutor, etc. One candidate for the engineering job has a BS from MIT the other from U of Ralph's Engineering Emporium. Who do you give the nod to for a possible interview?

Flip that a little and the UoREE candidate has an internship with a Fortune 500 company, published in a journal, and has a Sr. Design project that was featured in IEEE Spectrum. Well now he gets the nod. IOW he had to work harder to look better on first glance.

Sorry, that is the way it is the world. Rail against it all you will, but it has been that way since the dawn of time.
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
Hmm.

On has 10 seconds to look over a resume for an entry level position. Each resume has similar useless college level job references i.e. pizza delivery, tutor, etc. One candidate for the engineering job has a BS from MIT the other from U of Ralph's Engineering Emporium. Who do you give the nod to for a possible interview?

Flip that a little and the UoREE candidate has an internship with a Fortune 500 company, published in a journal, and has a Sr. Design project that was featured in IEEE Spectrum. Well now he gets the nod. IOW he had to work harder to look better on first glance.

Sorry, that is the way it is the world. Rail against it all you will, but it has been that way since the dawn of time.
Click to expand...
Oh I understand completely Scott. There was a tone to the original post though that has evolved some. Throwing your resume in a big pile is just a game of lucky anyways.
 
I think the original premise was valid in the "no relevant experience new-hire green trainee" context.
 
One thing that will help a person stand apart from the others in the job hunting game is to customize each resume you send out.

Tailor that resume and cover letter to the job. Everyone keeps talking about looking at a resume for 10 seconds. Well, within the first 3-4 seconds you need something to catch the HR guy's eye. If the guy is looking for a Microsoft specialist who has worked with Oracle DBs before, don't bury that info near the bottom of your resume. It should be near the top, seperated from everything else. If it is a non-profit and you have worked for non-profits before, put that information at the top.

Also, leave out things that have no bearing on the position. The pizza delivery job in college probably isn't going to help you, unless you are applying to Domino's corporate office.:D So many people are using the shotgun method of handing out resumes that this strategy will stand out. The reason people are getting 800 resumes for 1 position is because 790 of those people are sending out 25 resumes a day hoping to get a nibble.

Customizing my resume and doing a few other little things DRAMATICLY increased my chances of getting an interview (up to over 75%). In situations where possible, I would often hand deliver my resume on quality paper to the HR department. EVERYTIME I did that I got an interview. Doing the customization of resumes helps both you and the HR department. When I was doing the job hunting thing I realized that there were several jobs that I would have normally just shot off my resume that really were not a good fit for me. I had no competative advantage over anyone else applying. This way I don't waste my time or the HR person's time.
 
I did the experiment when I was job hunting all those years ago. I did some graphic design on the CV I sent to companies (not to schools, there its different). Had my favorite calligrapher do a nice letterhead, broke it down to columns with pictures of mouse embryos and origami. It had a 100% success rate. I got an interview of some sort everywhere I sent that thing. Sometimes I wish I still had it.
 
jesse said:
Uhm -- how is that a fair comparison? Hiring me as a lawyer would make no damn sense. Spike was not saying that one should hire someone completely unqualified and incapable -- he was saying that deciding if someone is capable solely based on the college they attended is a poor filter.
Click to expand...

You are correct, it would make no damn sense. I was linking your "you would just throw out my resume without consideration" comment with Spike's "yeah Jess you are worthless, a rube" without a college degree comment. I was highlighting, quite ineffectively, the fact that a degree is, in fact, a de facto requirement for some things, like, say, lawyering.

I think we're done here. :thumbsup:
 
mcjon77 said:
One thing that will help a person stand apart from the others in the job hunting game is to customize each resume you send out.
Click to expand...

Bingo! I am a non-traditional student (I'll be 30 y/o in November and will graduate with my B.S. in December). I've mostly worked 'grunt' jobs for the past 5-6 years but my current majors are MIS and OSCM (non-grunt type careers). I knew I needed to get some recent work history in my pocket before graduating this coming winter. When I was getting ready for the fall career fair last September, I looked at the list of companies coming and tweaked my resume for 4-5 of the companies I was mostly interested in - put my agriculutural experience at the top for the ag-based companies and put my I.T. experience at the top for the tech companies. For the 'lower tier' of my choices, I gave them a generic resume.

After handing out 7 resumes, I had 5 interviews. Of the 5 interviews, I had 4 internship job offers within three weeks and the 5th actually called me back two months later after I had already accepted another position. I didn't blanket the area with my resume because I didn't want just 'any' job (that will change once graduating this winter, though). I molded my resume for the jobs that I actually wanted and it worked.

My view is that the resume is there to get me in the door - whatever I can do to get my ticket punched (without falsifying information of course) is worth the effort. Once I get in the door and can meet face-to-face, I know I can interview as well as anybody. I have a wide range of past work experience which is hard to display on a single-page resume, but once I get in the door, I can show how my varied experience has been beneficial to my overall experience which most 22 y/o college grads don't have.

If someone anyone thinks they can graduate from Bob's Backyard School of Computers and should be compared equally to an MIT grad without tweaking their resume to show some sort of experience that helps level the playing field, they are crazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top