Quote:
Originally Posted by Mcdowel
So... higher education is related to higher IQ therefore, better job performance...WOW....your theory is kind of right @KAVOK84 but doesn't relate in the industry that we work on my friend.
I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I was providing statistical data, of which there is quite a bit supporting my statements, as a rant against the crappy article. My post was just intended to provide one plausible motivation any company could have in requiring higher education even if that education is unlikely to be relevant to the job.
So while the best, smartest pilot around may not have a high school education or any formal education, on average (since we're talking about populations) reducing qualifications to attract a larger applicant base would in all likelihood have the effects I stated.
Quote:
I don't know where you have flown, but it seems to me that only in america and with colleagues that speak your same language.
All over the world. I'm well aware that what I'm saying is a bit more specific to the american airline industry, but I also stated that in the original post.
Quote:
Let me explain myself.... In China, where i have flown couple years, the pilots know the FCOM by heart, the procedures, better tan you can possibly imagine and so on... Most of them have a very high IQ, but...when **** hits the fan, they get lost, VERY lost and therefore, they are not allowed to fly a heavy jet.
I understand, I've done a lot of flying in China myself. Again, I was never saying high IQ made you a good pilot... What I was trying to express is that barring more effective job relevant data (e.g., flight experience, types flown, training history) mental aptitude is highly predictive of performance. This is especially valid when an applicant lacks previous experience within a given field. Since that isn't the case with applicants of major US airlines, suitability is almost entirely determined in other ways. However, since the US majors have plenty of applicants-- as of now-- requiring the degree is a fairly straight forward way to ensure (on a population scale) the airline is spending its efforts on the best applicants. In other words, it's a cheap and easy way to chop the stack of resumes to a more manageable level-- especially in countries like the US where a tremendous amount of importance is placed on going to college, regardless of an individual's career plans.
Quote:
My point is, that you dont have to have a 4 year degree to be a safe and efficient guy flying an airplane, you just have to be a happy and appreciated person in your airline to get the job well done. If an airline is not able to recognize the experience in the real life that we live in, instead of having a 4 year degree, and they are having trouble finding pilots..then there is a problem, because in this industry, is not a better pilot who haves a higher IQ, is the one that gets the job done in a safe and efficient way, thats it, and experience is the only thing that can get you there
Of course I agree with you. And with the US airlines, the requirements will probably change soon based on market forces. I imagine the degree will go the way of the 1000 PIC for some airlines if it becomes difficult to attract pilots. Wishing for this outcome though is a mixed blessing; while it might be easier to get your first major airline job, that job may find itself inundated with qualified pilots (pay likely to go down eventually) as barriers to entry are removed and training is paid for. Ultimately, you still need good-qualified pilots... minimum qualifications will probably continue to ebb and flow with the market and nature of the mission.
My rant was mainly motivated by this type of aviation article, of which I've seen more and more lately. The author typically spouts some obvious fix for a perceived problem, devoid of any diligence or effort, and oftentimes as a guise for some ill-formed political ideology. They then choose to back up these claims with little to no expertise in aviation.
Hope that clarified things.