This is one of those times I wish I had a statistician’s skills. Maybe I ought to write to More or Less…

The BBC reported this morning that 78% of graduate recruiters are filtering out any candidates with less than a 2:1. As someone with a 2:2, and having been involved in recruitment for some years now, I take issue with this.

In my limited experience, degree score has practically no bearing on the value that an employee brings to a business. I have seen graduates with firsts last a matter of weeks, unable to make the transition from academic life to the working world. And I’ve employed people with no degree but clear aptitude who have quickly become key team members.

My indirect experience from networking events and the startup world bears this out. Sure there’s a sprinkling of academic stars but there is a much clearer common trait between the sharpest talents. It is the criterion used by Jon Bradford of The Difference Engine to select startups for his startup programme. He looks for ‘people who have done stuff’.

The example I might give of ‘stuff’ is getting involved in the students union (only because I did), but frankly it could be any kind of experience outside of academia. I want people with aptitude in my business, but the drive to actually do something is equally important. An academic qualification shows that people can perform well within given boundaries but for me the sheer score tells nothing about the person’s ability to operate independently and on initiative – qualities that are key to success in a small business/startup environment.

I couldn’t find any stats online to back up my limited experience, but I’d be very keen to see them if anyone else knows of any. Until someone can show me that degree score is a reasonable forecast of an employee’s value, I will continue to pay it little regard.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

I am returning to Lancaster University on Wednesday for the Alumni Careers Fair. It got me thinking about the skills that I will be looking for when we come to recruit our first graduate. My thoughts were further stimulated along this line following a chat with Katrina Delargy, CEO of TIYGA, an interesting start-up based at Daresbury Innovation Centre.

Katrina raised the issue of ‘fluid intelligence’ versus ‘crystalline intelligence’. These are terms created by psychologist Raymond Cattell and developed in partnership with John Horn. Fluid intelligence describes the innate ability to think abstractly and solve problems. Crystalline intelligence is learned through teaching, practice and experience.

Historically we as a society may have placed equal value on each form of intelligence, perhaps even the balance on the crystalline. Certainly the theory behind the switch from O-Levels to GCSEs was to increase the emphasis on reason over learned facts. But today there is arguably much less value in learned intelligence, since the sum of human knowledge is available via a search engine. What is valuable is the ability to interpret that knowledge quickly and use it appropriately.

This doesn’t devalue experience completely. I can make much more intelligent guesses about the right approach in various situations based on experience; doing something many times over almost invariably means that you do it faster and more efficiently. And there are certain key skills that have to be learned: arithmetic, grammar, and spelling being particularly important for this industry.

But beyond these basic skills, I don’t expect a graduate to have much experience and I am unlikely to be swayed by what experience they do have unless it is a fine margin between two candidates. Rather I am most concerned about their level of aptitude, and most of all, their willingness to apply it.