You can't change your ancestors, obviously.
Who your ancestors are doesn't determine who you are.
You are not a product of your upbringing, unless you allow yourself to be.
The child of alcoholic parents need not be an alcoholic. The child of abusive parents need not be abusive. One who hails from a communist country need not be communist. Simply because you were raised Roman Catholic doesn't mean that you must be. You are not who you were raised to be: you're who you decide to be.
Going to college doesn't change that. You're not a Cougar or a Razorback; you're who you elect to be.
THIS is why education is not irrelevant. The parameters are that the two people in question are identical except for their education. Neither one is "best for the job."
This is why we interview, rather than work off a resume.
I can usually tell most of what I need to know about an applicant for a job long before we ever move past sitting and talking. I can't tell that so much from a resume, but I can glean a lot from someone in person.
And what would you consider "best" for this unspecified job? You didn't qualify any of your statements. This is the kernel of why it's wrong.
There's no kernel, and there's no way to quantify who's best. If both are identical, cookie cutter individuals made of plastic who spout the same things, then eventually one might have to fall back on credentials, but those are not the prime qualifiers for the job. Who has more experience working? Does the one who left college to work on airplanes have more experience than the person who finished his degree in aeronautical engineering? I'll take the experienced mechanic, thanks. Are they both willing to work for the same about of money, and is it commensurate with their qualifications? If the degree holder is lowballing himself, that's a warning sign. There's always more to the picture. Always. I'll know after I've spoken to them, checked up on them, tested them, as the need may arise. The degree doesn't mean much, however, and it's not the deciding factor to me.
One thing that a technical college education can teach is the basics of logic, and in paying attention to the details. Can you get that by other methods? Sure. Is it guaranteed? Well, this time, it was a miss.
"Critical thinking" as espoused by the modern educational establishment is a joke. It's overthought thought. It's presented as something unique, something to be taught, and it's not. Is logic something one needs to seek in school? Assuredly not. It it guaranteed in school? Not at all.
The best person for the job is usually properly and formally trained. Whether that means college is a function of the job in question. There are exceptions, but if you're going to hang your hat on it, you're going to be disappointed
.
If you're talking about an attorney or a veterinarian, certainly the formal education is important; it's the basis of how one learns to do those things, before one gains certification.
In the case of pilots, not at all. A pilot is more like a ski instructor. One need not go to school to become a pilot. The same is true of aircraft mechanics. While school teaches a broad spectrum of the basics, I've had a chance to see the quality coming out of some well recognized schools and it's been rather unimpressive. Pilot mills, including accredited university pilot mills, are little different. Certainly students strut forth filled with the idea that they've been educated and that they're learned, and perhaps that they possess some modicum of skill, but the truth is that they're the same two or three hundred hour pilot that came from Ma and Pa Kettle's School of Fish Frying and Aerobatic Soaring. Another pilot for the masses, and their degree doesn't mean much at all.
Formal training is really inconsequential in the face of solid experience.
A great example is the ag world, where an operator couldn't give a stuff if you have a degree, and laughs at a formal ag school. He's only interested in what you've flown, your record, your references, and most importantly what you can do when he throws you in the seat of the airplane and tries you out. The same is true in varying ways in many other segments of the industry.
And you need to understand that those of us who make technical hiring decisions look at skills first. There is an obvious correlation with education, but it's the skills we're interested in. A large appropriate skill set with a small or absent education would get a second look, but despite the mythology you've bought into, that's very nearly a unicorn.
Mythology I've bought into, you say? Interesting.
My observations are merely that: observations of reality. Not something I've been told or taught. Certainly not something I've heard or upon which I've been sold.
Again, if you're hiring an aeronautical engineer, then Joe Schmoe with a slide rule and a pocket protector may not be your first choice. If you're hiring a pilot, however, then his degree is really quite irrelevant, and has nothing to do with his people skills, his technical skills, his ability or judgement, or his insurability. A sit-down meeting, a look at his references, a talk with his former employers, and a ride in the airplane or the simulator with him will tell you what you want to know.
I was in need of a job, once upon a time. I drove several hours delivering resumes, and at one stop, was asked to take a written test, and sat for an impromptu interview. I was then taken out to the airplane and given a two hour check ride. Not once did the operator ask if I had a degree. On another occasion, I stopped at a large field, delivering resumes by hand, and was asked by the operator again to spend the night and make myself available for an interview. We talked, went to lunch, and after lunch I was told to preflight a Learjet in the hangar. I was directed to fly the owner somewhere, then fly him back, which I did. Upon returning, a letter was drawn up with the terms of employment, and I was offered the job. Never did the discussion approach my formal education, nor did the operator care. He was concerned about safety, ability, and customer service. Satisfied, he offered me the job.
Had someone else been interviewing at the same time, dressed as me, who spoke like me, who looked like me, who had the same flight times and time in type, who had the same everything, who had a degree...it wouldn't really have mattered as the subject never came up, and wasn't germane to the job.
Certainly I have had interviews in which some asked about a degree (as previously relayed). I've had interviews in which I was asked about the score I got on my ATP written, with an incredulous response when I admit I have no idea...it was too long ago. Passing. I even had a couple that wanted to know my high school GPA. Who knows? Who remembers? If that's what's important to that employer, then I probably don't want to work for that employer; it's not what's important to me, and I'd rather have something in common with the employer. There are plenty of others who are like minded, who care about mission before minutia, and who place a premium on ability, rather than clout. I'll go work for them, thanks.
. How many sides of an issue can you defend?