Relative integrity of educational systems. How trustworthy are degrees?

[MrW0lf]

Anyway, please forgive me. I have to stop now.

Well it seems you have done your homework. But important not to go Alex "we are all doomed" Jones path and think what would be practical solutions to prolong existence that we consider normal... in fact probably singular case in known history when small man has some limited freedom, rights, basic education (carefully avoiding fundamental subjects but still).

Being own master and somewhat stepping out of the system certainly helps. Waste time on something formal only if actual ROI in sight.

[cdev]

While reading about the cross-licensing of professions in the EU I stumbled upon the "European Qualifications Framework" and the "Bologna Process" which appear to be slightly different programs to do similar things. (certify the quality of relative educational systems for cross-recognition in other Member States.) Also, in a 2011 paper I am reading they mention something about a special European Professional Card (EPC) which is supposed to be issued by 2016?  Anyway, thought their existence might inform the discussion.  Ive read about the Bologna Process many times before. (they seem like they are responsibly fighting against the privatization of public higher education)

[MrW0lf]

Here they realized that long-history academic university may be not best place for focused IT/tech education so for some time modern tech college operated offering "Diploma ('Bologna-type' the first degree, enabling access to Master's studies)". This was very welcome for more result-oriented students. Not by coincidence their robotics team wiped floor with ones from "academic background" teams every year.
AFAIK now they modernized big one somewhat and absorbed modern school. Probably robotics team complained and demanded if cannot beat them must join

[cdev]

The main EU organization of 800+ universities is fighting the FTAs.

http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publication/EUA_Statement_TTIP.pdf

Note their bullet item #1

[AG6QR]

Speaking from my experience in the software world...

University work is nearly always done solo, and the student, at least at undergraduate level, is doing work that many people have done before, and they are generally made-up exercises that many people are doing simultaneously.  An individual project may last a week, a few weeks, or rarely a full semester.

Commercial work after graduation is usually done in teams, and each individual is doing a task that nobody else has done before (in software development, if you ever catch someone doing the same thing more than about twice, that's a clue that someone needs to write a program to automate that task).  Software development often continues over years, occasionally decades.

I've known a few good software developers who lacked a university degree, but those were the rare exceptions.  A degree did force one to be exposed to certain techniques, algorithms, and ways of thinking.  Some people got that exposure in other ways, but that was not common.

I remember my graduation day, looking around at my classmates, and thinking, "Are these the kinds of people I would want to work with?".  The answer was a definite, "Many of them, absolutely!  Others, absolutely not!"  University education does not necessarily teach one to be a team player, nor does it always teach understanding.  There are some who grasp concepts intuitively, others who seem to be clueless but get by through brute force cramming facts in their brains for just barely long enough to regurgitate them onto an exam, after which they are lost forever.  Perhaps there are jobs for which that temporary "cramming" skill is valuable (actors remembering their lines, maybe?) but software development isn't such a job.

So I'd say a university degree is neither necessary nor sufficient, but it's extremely valuable, nonetheless.  It's very difficult to succeed without it, and my advice to anyone who will listen is, "go get the degree!"  It's possible to fail even with a degree, though.  Some people aren't cut out to understand concepts and apply them, while contributing more to a team than they take from it.  Those people aren't fun to work with, and they don't last long at good employers.

Lately, I've been interviewing a lot of university graduates for entry-level positions at my employer.  A university level degree is a basic prerequisite for many types of positions, but by itself, it's not nearly enough.  For programming jobs, we always present a problem to a candidate and ask him/her to develop a solution and talk us through it.  We look for high-level understanding of logic and algorithms, along with ability to explain; not whether they get the commas and semicolons in the right places. 

One question I always ask at an interview is, "Have you worked on any projects outside of your coursework?"  A "no" answer isn't a disqualification, but the right kind of "yes" answer can hugely increase one's chances of moving on to the next stage of the selection process.  The candidate who has a passion for doing this kind of work, and initiative to do it independently, is far, far, ahead of someone who is tolerating being in the field because someone told them it pays well.

[IanMacdonald]

"There are some who grasp concepts intuitively, others who seem to be clueless but get by through brute force cramming facts in their brains for just barely long enough to regurgitate them onto an exam, after which they are lost forever.  Perhaps there are jobs for which that temporary "cramming" skill is valuable (actors remembering their lines, maybe?) but software development isn't such a job."

Used to work in industrial training, and we got a fair proportion of what I would term 'Human USB sticks' going through the courses.  Some would refuse to do the course practical work, instead just sitting there handwriting-out sections of textbooks over and over. The interesting thing was that while these 'EPROM on legs' students failed the practical work as was to be expected... most of them also got a poor mark in the written test. 

 

[tggzzz]

Speaking from my experience in the software world...

University work is nearly always done solo, and the student, at least at undergraduate level, is doing work that many people have done before, and they are generally made-up exercises that many people are doing simultaneously.  An individual project may last a week, a few weeks, or rarely a full semester.

Commercial work after graduation is usually done in teams, and each individual is doing a task that nobody else has done before (in software development, if you ever catch someone doing the same thing more than about twice, that's a clue that someone needs to write a program to automate that task).  Software development often continues over years, occasionally decades.

I've known a few good software developers who lacked a university degree, but those were the rare exceptions.  A degree did force one to be exposed to certain techniques, algorithms, and ways of thinking.  Some people got that exposure in other ways, but that was not common.

I remember my graduation day, looking around at my classmates, and thinking, "Are these the kinds of people I would want to work with?".  The answer was a definite, "Many of them, absolutely!  Others, absolutely not!"  University education does not necessarily teach one to be a team player, nor does it always teach understanding.  There are some who grasp concepts intuitively, others who seem to be clueless but get by through brute force cramming facts in their brains for just barely long enough to regurgitate them onto an exam, after which they are lost forever.  Perhaps there are jobs for which that temporary "cramming" skill is valuable (actors remembering their lines, maybe?) but software development isn't such a job.

So I'd say a university degree is neither necessary nor sufficient, but it's extremely valuable, nonetheless.  It's very difficult to succeed without it, and my advice to anyone who will listen is, "go get the degree!"  It's possible to fail even with a degree, though.  Some people aren't cut out to understand concepts and apply them, while contributing more to a team than they take from it.  Those people aren't fun to work with, and they don't last long at good employers.

Lately, I've been interviewing a lot of university graduates for entry-level positions at my employer.  A university level degree is a basic prerequisite for many types of positions, but by itself, it's not nearly enough.  For programming jobs, we always present a problem to a candidate and ask him/her to develop a solution and talk us through it.  We look for high-level understanding of logic and algorithms, along with ability to explain; not whether they get the commas and semicolons in the right places. 

One question I always ask at an interview is, "Have you worked on any projects outside of your coursework?"  A "no" answer isn't a disqualification, but the right kind of "yes" answer can hugely increase one's chances of moving on to the next stage of the selection process.  The candidate who has a passion for doing this kind of work, and initiative to do it independently, is far, far, ahead of someone who is tolerating being in the field because someone told them it pays well.

That's a very sensible, balanced and accurate overview.

That's a pleasant contrast to people that push a dogmatic opinion.

Too often the people that push dogmatic opinions are any or all of:

• not acknowledging their own failings or limitations (we all have those; the wise acknowledge them)
• basing it on some bad experiences (we all have those; the wise use them as a basis for increasing the probability of future good experiences)
• snobbery (where that is dominant, it is best to avoid such people since they don't bring out the best in people/situations)
• inverted snobbery (very difficult to deal with; such people rarely change and can be quite destructive)

[CJay]

How free from corruption are educational systems in your country? Can a graduate degree in a field or multiple degrees be trusted to be a good enough indication of somebody's skill that it can truly be called an objective measure of their skills?

I wouldn't rely solely on evidence of a degree (from a reputable and verifiable university/college) as proof of someone's ability or knowledge, same as I wouldn't suggest universities are corrupt just because some graduates are bloody useless and have little to no ability.

Experience and demonstrable skills are the only way to pick the good ones, even then, there's an LED cube somewhere in this office block that was presented as an interview piece by one graduate who is now a full time and valuable employee, I've chatted to him a few times now and during one conversation he admitted he copied pretty much all of it including the code (he had to cut the code down because it was for an Arduino with more memory than the one he used) so all it shows is that he can solder a circuit into a functional state and present it nicely.

You can, if you work hard, gain a degree in an awful lot of areas of study just by virtue of that hard work, it doesn't necessarily imbue an ability or understanding of anything outside of the reference material or indeed any interest in the subject studied, it's just a means to an end and that end is often a career because a degree opens doors that remain firmly closed if you can't show one.

[tggzzz]

[a degree is] just a means to an end and that end is often a career because a degree opens doors that remain firmly closed if you can't show one.

True, except that they can be fun to do as well!

And "because I want to" is almost the only valid reason to do a PhD.

[CJay]

[a degree is] just a means to an end and that end is often a career because a degree opens doors that remain firmly closed if you can't show one.

True, except that they can be fun to do as well!

And "because I want to" is almost the only valid reason to do a PhD.

Oh absolutely, it really should be fun and most probably will be if you have an interest and/or ability in the subject.

I do know a couple of people who have been paid to complete their PHD as part of their job, it wasn't 'required' but it was 'desirable' and opened up further career progression, indeed I have a friend who is allowed to call herself Professor because one job 'desired' PHDs, the employer paid for it and as a result of that she lectured at one well known red brick Uni, she's now moved on to another, arguably lesser, university for a *lot* more money and plenty of regular travel.

[tggzzz]

[a degree is] just a means to an end and that end is often a career because a degree opens doors that remain firmly closed if you can't show one.

True, except that they can be fun to do as well!

And "because I want to" is almost the only valid reason to do a PhD.

Oh absolutely, it really should be fun and most probably will be if you have an interest and/or ability in the subject.

I do know a couple of people who have been paid to complete their PHD as part of their job, it wasn't 'required' but it was 'desirable' and opened up further career progression, indeed I have a friend who is allowed to call herself Professor because one job 'desired' PHDs, the employer paid for it and as a result of that she lectured at one well known red brick Uni, she's now moved on to another, arguably lesser, university for a *lot* more money and plenty of regular travel.

My "almost" was because 40 years ago you needed a PhD to progress beyond a certain point in the scientific civil service. I doubt that is still true, but I haven't checked.

[hans]

Speaking from my experience in the software world...
[...]

I agree with large parts of your post.

But, atleast in Dutch universities, there is some emphasis on group collaboration on projects. But I'm afraid this is not completely driven to benefit the students, but also to ease the workload on some of the profs/PhDs/student assistants. 45 candidates for the course? Pff, what if I let them make groups of 3, only 15 project reports to read. Wow that's a lot of work saved!

Additionally some people can hide their incompetence in assignments and group work. You can team up a good coder + bad coder, both a good grade for their assignments. People can copy solutions from each other assignments, etc.

Once we had an assignment & test in a software course. Some groups were boasting they got an 8.5+ average on the assignments. They barely passed the test with a 5. There was a prominent gap from 4.4 to 5.0, because any grade <5 was a fail for the complete course, so they got the benefit of the doubt probably.

I can rage about writing code on paper tests and all, but that is primarily because of lack of convenience. In the end, it's still "writing code". People that want to go into software development should be able to read code and just understand it without tools explaining what their work does (especially embedded which sometimes a lack proper debugging tools).

And even at a graduate level, it isn't self explanatory that people have these skills. There was also a course on programming in C++, that supposedly as of "advanced" level. It started out explaining what C header files were and that C++ contains something called classes. It was dumbed down to the level for people that know what if-else and for loops are, but not much more. The aimed end level of the course was to write a project with some classes that used inheritance. "Advanced", graduate level?

On the other hand, some of the things I mentioned is also just hands-on experience, which is barely touched in graduate courses. I think hands-on experience can/should be gained outside of university, i.e. hobby projects, or if you're a willing desperate employer, on the job. Eventually you still see a difference in people that have done programming ever since they were a kid and became "infected (same goes with electronics). The people that keep doing some projects in their spare time, etc. You can find these smart people in university as well, but they are certainly a lot more rare.

I think the biggest take away for someone that finished university, is that they don't need every formula spoon fed to them. As said before, the formulas for volume/surface area of spheres/cones/etc. at a graduate level Calculus are shortcuts rather than "I need to use this formula to calculate this". We derived these 'shortcuts' by hand with volume and surface integrals. It was basically exercises 1 and 2, because they were some of the simplest shapes... the very weird shapes became much more interesting to calculate.

What value such understanding and different skill set has depends on the position and perhaps the company. Practical skills are also invaluable, and you certainly don't need university for that (look at all the self trained people around here doing amazing stuff). But for some positions, a degree is the only foot between the door you can get.

[coppice]

I've known a few good software developers who lacked a university degree, but those were the rare exceptions.  A degree did force one to be exposed to certain techniques, algorithms, and ways of thinking.  Some people got that exposure in other ways, but that was not common.

I've known quite a few good software developer without a degree, and that used to be extremely common. However, these days its much more common to find good software developers with a completely irrelevant degree that couldn't get them a job. Software seems to be a go to profession for people with degrees in things like archaeology, where there are quite a few students, but only a very few career openings. Its takes a lot of knowledge to be a flexible broadly based player in the software field, but you can become useful enough to get a basic job in a much shorter time than in most professions.

[amyk]

I'd say to mostly disregard degrees and other certifications (especially if someone has gathered a huge number of the latter) --- the only way to be sure is to practically test someone in the interview. An example of something designed by someone with a degree. And another one. The list goes on...

[coppice]

[a degree is] just a means to an end and that end is often a career because a degree opens doors that remain firmly closed if you can't show one.

True, except that they can be fun to do as well!

And "because I want to" is almost the only valid reason to do a PhD.

Quite a few people do a PhD because they want to spend their lives in academia, and a PhD is now the only route to that. Quite a few people do a PhD because they want to spend their lives in pure research, and it has become hard to get taken seriously there without a PhD (not quite so hard in engineering research, but pretty hard in pure science research, especially for life sciences).

You might say that people with those goals in life would be the kind to find a PhD appealing in itself. My experience is a lot end up trudging through a tedious PhD, with a supervisor they don't get along with, purely to get the PhD and open up opportunities beyond it.

[rstofer]

I'd say to mostly disregard degrees and other certifications (especially if someone has gathered a huge number of the latter) --- the only way to be sure is to practically test someone in the interview. An example of something designed by someone with a degree. And another one. The list goes on...

In some places you need to be very careful about 'entrance'  tests.  They need to be administered to every candidate, they can't have implied bias and a whole lot of other conditions.  They are very risky for the employer.  For example, the test uses highly technical words, in english, and the candidate isn't really proficient in english.  Unless proficiency was one of the stated qualifications, there's likely to be a problem should the candidate be rejected.  Check with an HR lawyer...

A better choice, awkward as it might be, is to have a 90 day 'probationary' term.  If the new-hire makes the grade during the first 90 days, they stay.  If not, they are shown the door.  But even in 'employment-at-will' states like California, this needs to be done carefully.  Done badly, the discharged candidate owns the company.

A wide-ranging BS session over lunch or dinner might be a better way to handle things.  Kick back, discuss things somehow related to the position and then decide.

An even better way is to rent a candidate through a body shop.  If you like their work, you hire them away.  If you don't, you send them back.  At no point were they your employee and they weren't your problem.  Just make sure they don't stay longer than 1 year.  IBM got hit with this back in the early '80s.

As to a degree:  These days you are going nowhere without one.  Unless, of course, you are truly gifted.  A graduate degree carries a lot of weight.  Everybody has a BS degree, far fewer have an MS and a very few have a PhD.  In my view, the MS is the sweet spot.  It might be as few as 31 additional units and is well worth the effort.

As to the credibility of universities:  Well, I guess I would rate Stanford above Cal State Stanislaus.  No doubt they cover the same ground in the classes but Stanford is Stanford.  Stanislaus isn't!

In Physics, I might prefer Cal Tech...  That ought to start a war!

[Simon]

[a degree is] just a means to an end and that end is often a career because a degree opens doors that remain firmly closed if you can't show one.

True, except that they can be fun to do as well!

And "because I want to" is almost the only valid reason to do a PhD.

Oh absolutely, it really should be fun and most probably will be if you have an interest and/or ability in the subject.

I do know a couple of people who have been paid to complete their PHD as part of their job, it wasn't 'required' but it was 'desirable' and opened up further career progression, indeed I have a friend who is allowed to call herself Professor because one job 'desired' PHDs, the employer paid for it and as a result of that she lectured at one well known red brick Uni, she's now moved on to another, arguably lesser, university for a *lot* more money and plenty of regular travel.

There is nothing fun about the poorly presented material in my HNC course. It is pretty obvious that degrees have value because they are degrees and "you have to have one" in a tick box approach but having knowledge is often optional. Universities that are now private companies getting another private company to set standards and mark papers are all in it for the money and it's becoming money for old rope. You make a token effort and you get a qualification, if mummy and daddy have enough money and know the right people you get to go to a historically recognized institution (where lecturers hand out exam answers beforehand) and get a better degree than ones from other institutions that are supposed to have the same value. the whole point of standards is that any degree in a subject is the same no matter where you get it, but apparently not so on the one hand we have standards but on the other one institutions degree is worth more than another's. I have no respect for BTEC and Pearsons that run the BTEC standard (or lack of) don't care about the quality or even correctness of study material. As the government has devolved the running of our schooling standards to a private company they don't care either (beleive me I have tried).

So in the name of playing the game i am studying a poorly presented course my employer put me one when what I am studying has no use to my work and there are plenty of other things of more use i would prefer to study but last time i checked there are no qualifications for can bus or other digital protocols, pcb layout, software writing on MCU's so instead in order to get a peice of paper I am studying physics with an electrical bent...... Poorly explained Laplace transforms anyone? I am only making progress by using online resources and books i have had to buy despite my employer already paying for the course that comes with it's own shambolic materials.

[A Hellene]

"There are some who grasp concepts intuitively, others who seem to be clueless but get by through brute force cramming facts in their brains for just barely long enough to regurgitate them onto an exam, after which they are lost forever.  Perhaps there are jobs for which that temporary "cramming" skill is valuable (actors remembering their lines, maybe?) but software development isn't such a job."

Used to work in industrial training, and we got a fair proportion of what I would term 'Human USB sticks' going through the courses.  Some would refuse to do the course practical work, instead just sitting there handwriting-out sections of textbooks over and over. The interesting thing was that while these 'EPROM on legs' students failed the practical work as was to be expected... most of them also got a poor mark in the written test. 

'Human USB sticks'?
'EPROM on legs'?

Very well put! Meaningful and catchy terms that I agree with but, what about this one: 'Monkeys with a Degree'?
Would it be an exaggerated one?


-George

[cdev]

"Shambolic"  what a great word.

[Simon]

"There are some who grasp concepts intuitively, others who seem to be clueless but get by through brute force cramming facts in their brains for just barely long enough to regurgitate them onto an exam, after which they are lost forever.  Perhaps there are jobs for which that temporary "cramming" skill is valuable (actors remembering their lines, maybe?) but software development isn't such a job."

Used to work in industrial training, and we got a fair proportion of what I would term 'Human USB sticks' going through the courses.  Some would refuse to do the course practical work, instead just sitting there handwriting-out sections of textbooks over and over. The interesting thing was that while these 'EPROM on legs' students failed the practical work as was to be expected... most of them also got a poor mark in the written test. 

'Human USB sticks'?
'EPROM on legs'?

Very well put! Meaningful and catchy terms that I agree with but, what about this one: 'Monkeys with a Degree'?
Would it be an exaggerated one?


-George

The problem with today's graduates as I explained earlier is that they lack problem solving skills. the term engineering basically means the exercise of cleverness to come up with novel solutions to practical problems. You can't do this by memorizing stuff. My work environment is sniffled by "we have never done that" and "best stick to what we know", it is indeed a pleasure the few occasions I get told to go away and do what is necessary usually with my favorite contractors enlisted as I/we can just do it right - does not always last for long though.

[bd139]

Agree. Every time someone whines at me at work about never doing something before and stick it to what you know they get bitchslapped back to a junior code monkey position very rapidly. Literally the only thing separating you from your competitors in any market is innovation and to do that you have to come up with original ideas and take (calculated) product risks. There’s no place for market complacency in even the most established companies.

[A Hellene]

The problem with today's graduates as I explained earlier is that they lack problem solving skills. the term engineering basically means the exercise of cleverness to come up with novel solutions to practical problems. You can't do this by memorizing stuff. My work environment is sniffled by "we have never done that" and "best stick to what we know", it is indeed a pleasure the few occasions I get told to go away and do what is necessary usually with my favorite contractors enlisted as I/we can just do it right - does not always last for long though.

Exactly, Simon! Exactly. After all, since the late Seventies it has been hypothesised (if not proved) that the product of <memory> * <critical thinking> is constant: The more of the former one someone possesses the less of the latter one also does...

But, the problem with higher education nowadays is that they do not need clever ones as the so-called education outcome; all they need is people trained to be clever enough to be finishing their tasks but not clever enough to be realising their real position in society. All they are creating is trained monkeys to be pushing the right buttons in the right order in order to receive their bananas..

This is something similar I have written a few years back:

( * ) Just look at the quality of the "engineers" the educational institutions spit out today. Their eduction is oriented rather in their marketing skills than in actual Electrical Engineering. Quoting a friend of mine, "The only engineers who get promoted to management are the ones who can be spared. The real walking disasters are the ones who think they got promoted because they were good."

And this:

In a few words, education is a widely acceptable and a desirable means of conditioning the people to be functioning in a strictly controlled fashion, under the pretext of "gaining knowledge." Two and a half millennia ago, our ancient forefathers documented in great detail these methods of creating willful bondmen, in the Allegory of the Noble Lie. Today, these methods are euphemistically called Social Engineering. Does the two and a half millennia old Allegory of The Cave (also documented by the same author) remind of our contemporary indoctrination machines called the TV and the Cinema, which the vast majority of the people globally think of as beneficial sources of news, education and entertainment?
[...]
If we are making the people smart enough to be pressing the right buttons in the right order but dumb enough for anything else, this is not education; it is conditioning. If we are making the people able to memorise anything required in order to receive paper qualifications, but also unable of thinking on their own, this is not education; it is conditioning. If we are making our pets to be doing somersaults on demand, this is not education; it is conditioning.

After all, creativity is not something that can be taught or be given; it can only be earned...

-George

[tggzzz]

This discussion is missing a key concept: to be successful a team has to have multiple "personalities" that cannot be found in a single person.

My favourite characterisations are, in no particular order, ideas man, critic, worker, finisher, chairman, communicator. In practice individuals have a primary personality, but can also double-up in a second role. Each personality has required strengths and allowable weaknesses.

If you have two critics, then everything will work but there will be nothing innovative.
If you have two ideas men, then there will be wonderful sparks, but nothing realistic.
If you have an ideas man and a critic, then you will get innovative realistic plans, but nothing more.
If you don't have a communicator then the project might get canned or nobody will buy it.
A chairman doesn't have to know anything, but does facilitate interactions between team members.
Etc, etc.

Complaints about "lack of realism" or "not innovative" are missing critical points about human beings.

[Simon]

The problem with today's graduates as I explained earlier is that they lack problem solving skills. the term engineering basically means the exercise of cleverness to come up with novel solutions to practical problems. You can't do this by memorizing stuff. My work environment is sniffled by "we have never done that" and "best stick to what we know", it is indeed a pleasure the few occasions I get told to go away and do what is necessary usually with my favorite contractors enlisted as I/we can just do it right - does not always last for long though.

Exactly, Simon! Exactly. After all, since the late Seventies it has been hypothesised (if not proved) that the product of <memory> * <critical thinking> is constant: The more of the former one someone possesses the less of the latter one also does...

But, the problem with higher education nowadays is that they do not need clever ones as the so-called education outcome; all they need is people trained to be clever enough to be finishing their tasks but not clever enough to be realising their real position in society. All they are creating is trained monkeys to be pushing the right buttons in the right order in order to receive their bananas..

This is something similar I have written a few years back:

-George
[/quote]

Quite likely. My memory is shit, which is why I am finding the qualification so hard to do because i can't memorize enough math in one go to solve a problem. Society has a strict idea about what my role should be. I once had an assessment for dyslexia that included an IQ test, I wasn't given a number but was told it was off the chart. My much used phrase these days at work is "told you so" as my judgement is never headed but i am always proven right and it is so frustrating to try and explain why something should or should not be done only to be treated like an idiot and then a long time later well after my warnings have been forgotten I am proven right. These days I have taken a don't care attitude and do as little work as possible, and i'm starting to fit in after 5 years of scorn.

[R005T3r]

Universities are only too happy to accept their money.

Depends on where you are living, however, I belive that most of the things you learn in university are just overdone to make you not pass the exam.

However, I think that instead of wasting 3 year on a course, it might be better learing a ton of other things, such as how to operate a lathe, learining another language, and so on, because it might be true that it's hard to compete whit someone who holds a degree, but it's also true that he can't compete with you if he has less experience and less perks than you have!

If you are hired by someone, that someone is looking foward to have his problem solved, not the qualifications you have. Not to mention that they want you to do a good job, or you are fired!