[Essential Theory] Why a "Good Academic Background" Does Not Automatically Mean "Talented Personnel" Part 1

"Academic background" is a criterion for selecting "talented personnel"

Introduction

Hello. This is Tasuku Hanamaru.
Actually, I intended to write about the fundamental differences between "exam preparation" and "studying after entering the workforce," but I will first address a theme that I felt needed to be touched upon before that.

The fact that a "good academic background" does not necessarily mean "talented personnel"—I will write about this first this time.
I would like this article to be read not only by working professionals but also by students preparing for exams and those who have a complex about their academic background.

I am going to talk about something important.

What kind of personnel does society seek?

Needless to say, post-war Japan has been built on an academic credential society (there was also a trend of "Imperial University graduates" before the war).
Japan's bureaucratic system is still dominated by the University of Tokyo.
Many of the people who support Japan's world-leading science and technology, winning Nobel Prizes almost every year, are graduates of Japan's leading universities, starting with Kyoto University. The same applies to major companies.

I think there is certainly a reason why the credentialism that exists regardless of what people say cannot be denied.
In general values, especially during the Showa era, there was a life model as one such success story.
If you get into a good university, you can get into a good company, have a good marriage, and live a prosperous life.
The starting point, the first step to obtaining the "happiness" that everyone longs for, is "academic background," and
that is why people study furiously for exams, and so on.
And Japan has moved forward for decades under the lifetime employment system.

In the first place, the personnel that the country and companies have sought and needed.
First and foremost, that is talented personnel.

Then, by what standard is "talent" judged?
It is "people who graduated from a good university."
This is because it is "quick and easy" to search among them.

Credentialism is actually better than in the past

In the past, a major job-hunting site was brought up for suspicion of automatically rejecting applicants from so-called "F-rank universities," with people calling it "discrimination."
If I may offer my own opinion, I believe that is a "natural judgment" and not "discrimination."
It could also be rephrased as the "harshness of reality."

It is true that not everyone can get into a famous university.
However, if it is just to take the exam, anyone who has a high school diploma can take it.
Family status, lineage, wealth, family structure, and age have absolutely nothing to do with it.
It is a system where you can pass equally if you can get the score on the day of the exam.

There are many people who lament credentialism, but compared to social systems from long ago, it is actually quite a bit better.
In the Edo period, for example, your occupation was automatically decided by the family business you were born into (such as farmers), and changes were not allowed.
Conversely, even if you wanted to become great, in the West, for example, only those of royal blood could become kings.
Aristocrats who could live in luxury were also a small minority, and the vast majority of people were forced to be commoners or lower (= living a poor life) "almost automatically."
In other words,the chances of changing the basic stage of your life are almost zero.
Compared to that kind of "discrimination," academic background still has equality and fairness, and there is a chance for a "one-shot reversal."

Commonalities of people who pass difficult exams and qualifications

That is precisely why if you want to pass your top-choice school, you must make appropriate preparations, create an environment, and win the competition to make your dream come true.

Therefore, something common to many successful candidates.
That is, for example, during their high school years,the reality that they are definitely sacrificing something, (please note that this also applies to all examinees in general).

To gain something means to sacrifice something else.
And it is about accepting that and taking action.

It depends on the person, but for example, time spent playing games, time spent hanging out with friends thinking "I'm bored," time spent at a part-time job, time spent making a boyfriend or girlfriend and having fun.
While many people use their time for such things and live in the "now," they instead look to the "future" and "study."

They shave off the sweetness of their precious teenage years—the time when everything you do is the most fun, and everything you experience turns into sense and sensibility and is absorbed—and devote it to "exam preparation."

Furthermore, it is also necessary to think about "how to make a plan and execute it toward the goal" and "what I need to overcome now."
These are skills such as self-analysis, management, execution, and the flexibility to be inventive.
Unless you acquire and polish such qualities through study, it is difficult to break through difficult barriers.

A good academic background, from one perspective, is the fruition of such comprehensive effort (please note that this is naturally not an absolute theory).

Therefore, a "good academic background" is not just about the name value of the "university name," but

• having the "strength to sacrifice other benefits for the sake of a goal"

• possessing the "mental resilience" to face and digest stress (a mentality that can calmly continue a routine)

• having planning skills and being able to align conditions toward achieving a goal

It can be rephrased as something that proves these things at a certain level.
Furthermore, in society, there are many senior "graduates" regardless of which university you graduate from.
Connections with such people (= academic cliques) also have some meaning.
For bosses and seniors, a junior who graduated from the same university is often viewed favorably as a source of peace of mind.
If you are surrounded by people who are always looking to find fault in a competitive society, it naturally becomes like that, doesn't it?
That is why "which university you graduated from" varies depending on the company.

What companies prioritize is, above all, their own corporate values

The qualities mentioned earlier are exactly what large companies look for in talent to get work done.
Therefore, it is natural that large companies want to hire from the top of the educational background list first.
From a probabilistic standpoint, this can be said to be a nearly optimal solution.
Given that demand, it is harsh, but it can be said that it is logical for those who are likely not at that level, such as F-rank students, to be automatically filtered out.

Let's rephrase this as follows.
Now, if you were the one paying the salary, which candidate would you choose?

• Someone who can control themselves to achieve goals and set priorities, or someone who cannot.

• Someone who can make decisions with a medium-to-long-term perspective, or someone who lives only for the present.

• Someone who has challenged themselves, or someone who has lived an ordinary life.

• Someone who identifies problems and implements solutions, or someone who does not think very deeply.

Flowers do not bloom where there are no seeds.
Application comes after the foundation is laid.
Then, the answer to 'who to hire' becomes self-evident.

All that companies care about is 'whether the talent can return performance commensurate with their salary.'
They do not consider the applicant's logic, such as 'how much salary I want' or 'I want to be given an equal chance.'

I will end it here for now.
Thank you for your time.

And everyone, although I appreciate you reading to the end,
up to this point, it has only been the'Introduction'...

Actually, this is where the main topic begins!(That's a long preamble!)
Based on that logic, educational credentialism has held power for a long time, butrecently that is not necessarily the case.
What exactly does that mean?

Please see the sequel below for the continuation!
Thank you for staying with me until the end.
It encourages me, so please hit the 'Like' button and follow me!
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓