Recruitment and economics -an interesting mix

I had some time to kill and decided to browse the shelves in WH Smith looking at the latest books. For reasons I cannot really fathom I was drawn to a book on economics! To be fair it is described as “bringing the power of economics to life” and “lively and witty” .

I have some history with economics. In my business degree I always scored highly in economics modules. I even went on to take an optional module on transport economics ( which means I understand the arguments for road tolls  and park and ride systems). I need to stop now as I am in danger of sounding a bit of a geek.

The book is “The Undercover Economist”  by Tim Harford and so far I have found it quite fascinating. The author explains basic economic theories by relating them to the cost of a cup of coffee, buying a second hand car and even climate change. I have even laughed out loud at some of his comments.

I was particularly interested in his comment

Assume that employers would like to hire smart diligent workers but can’t tell from an interview who is smart of diligent.

…and he suggests that they should hire people with a degree in philosophy which is apparently a difficult degree to get and does not ( on the face of it anyway) lead to a specific career. So someone who goes to the trouble of working for a philosophy degree shows that they are not afraid of hard work and “dumb lazy people” would not bother.

Harford relates this to separating “peaches” ( the good things) from “lemons” – which are just , well lemons in anybody’s language.

I won’t spoil the story any further for anyone out there whose finger is hovering over the mouse to go to Amazon to get the book for themselves.  It just made me think differently about those further qualifications that many people have and how they are viewed by potential employers. I recall someone applying for a job in the tax department I worked in several years ago. Amongst they numerous applicants with degrees in accounting, maths, and even economics – this one stood out as he had a degree in Medieval History. Did he get an interview? Not a chance. (I was not involved in hiring at that stage. I would have had him to interview just to find out more).

I still hear comments that someone was “overqualified” for a post – whatever that could possibly mean. Underqualified I can understand… (Maybe it means that they have more qualifications than their would be manager has.)

However, Harford is very good at pointing out when his theory can be blown out of the water. There seems to be a wide variety and range of work required for degrees of any type – and some students have to work harder than others just to break even – so there is a flaw in the logic.

I am looking forward to finding out what other gems he has to share.