A veteran with 20 years military service working in arduous conditions, having to deal with unique problems in a constantly changing environment with less college? or someone whos daddy paid for college?
2007-01-31 03:06:11 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Well, that's a rather absurd question.
Always hire the best qualified person, regardless of race, color, religion or any other outside factor.
I used to work for a couple of ex Navy men, and they didn't consider anyone's opinion to be worthwhile unless they were former military. Since they were the only two in the company with military experience, theirs were the only opinions that mattered.
As a result, all the techs who actually knew how to keep the systems running were ignored. The consequences for business were disastrous, as systems either performed poorly or outright failed due to poor design.
Military experience does not equal some sort of superior stance as a human being, or an ability to handle non-combat situations any better than someone without a military background.
2007-01-31 03:23:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
Military experience is a fantastic thing to have on your resume. The military gives you skills and experiences that are hard, if not impossible, to get anywhere else.
However, if you're talking a 20 year vet - he/she may not be the best hire for every job. You spend 20 years doing any 1 thing, and you become pretty specialized. Not only that, but you develop what I like to refer to as "myopia," or a standardized, narrower way of thinking. I'm not saying that someone with 20 years of exp. in the military (or anywhere else) can't change careers, but unless the job the vet is applying for is something that can utilize one of his/her highly developed skills, I might be hesitant to bring them on board without thoroughly evaluating other candidates. My friends in the hiring world always tell me that its easier (and cheaper) to build someone from scratch than it is to take someone apart and rebuild them.
Simply stated though, If it came down to two people who had identical qualifications, but one had service experience and one didn't, I'd take the Vet every time.
2007-01-31 11:24:34 · answer #2 · answered by Jeff S 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I would absolutely hire a veteran before I would ever hire someone fresh out of college. I'd hold a veteran in higher regard than somebody with all kinds of alphabet soup behind their name. Military experience, especially war experience, is incomparable to much else.
2007-01-31 11:20:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I'd go with the veteran. He has more life experience, and can work under pressure, and is able to deal with "problems in a constantly changing environment".
2007-01-31 11:18:45 · answer #4 · answered by JEHLERS 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
What about somebody who's daddy paid for college and also joined the military? Everyone is unique, I would take everything in to account.
2007-01-31 11:27:58 · answer #5 · answered by Nina T 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'M A VET AND THAT ARGUMENT DOESN'T HOLD WATER WITH ME. THE PERSON BETTER QUALIFIED FOR THE JOB GETS THE JOB. THIS IS ANOTHER FORM OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS THAT IS JUST HYPOCRISY. IF I NEED SOMEONE TRACKED AND KILLED THEN YES I WILL CALL THE EX VET WITH 20 YEARS EXPERIENCE. IF I WANT MY KIDS LEARNING THE SCIENCE'S OR MATH DADDY'S COLLEGE TUITIONED CHILD WILL MOST PROBABLY BE THE TEACHER. IF I NEED MY KID TO LEARN SURVIVAL SKILLS, THE VET. IF I NEED MY KID TO LEARN GEOMETRY DADDY'S BOY WILL DO. JUST BECAUSE SOME ONE HAD THEIR TUITION PAYED BY DADDY THAT DOESN'T DISQUALIFY HIM OR HER FROM ANYTHING THAT A SOLDIER CAN DO. IT DOESN'T TAKE MUCH TO PULL A TRIGGER AND KILL FROM HALF A MILE AWAY BUT SIT IN A CLASS AND LEARN TRIGONOMETRY THEN COME BACK AND TELL ME YOU WANT AN UN STABLE TRIGGER HAPPY SOLDIER TO TEACH IN MY KIDS CLASS ROOM. ANY SOLDIER THAT HAS 20 YEARS EXPERIENCE SHOULD HAVE HAD A PLAN TO LEAVE THE MILITARY WITH REAL VIABLE WORK WAITING IN THE WORLD. A TWENTY YEAR VET SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH SKILLS TO LAND A POSITION IN ANY FIELD THEY ARE SKILLED IN. JUST BECAUSE YOU WERE A SOLDIER FOR TWENTY YEARS THAT DOES NOT QUALIFY YOU FOR EVERY JOB. NOR DOES IT ENTITLE YOU TO GET PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT WHEN FACED WITH CIVILIANS. TWENTY YEARS IN THE MILITARY WAS BY CHOICE AND DON'T GET ME WRONG I APPRECIATE THE SOLDIERS THAT ARE OUT THEIR BUT IT IS BY CHOICE THAT YOU'RE IN THE MILITARY.
THAT DOES NOT ENTITLE YOU TO PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.
2007-01-31 11:26:37 · answer #6 · answered by strike_eagle29 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I would hire the veteran. Veterans have to learn a new job every couple of years, so they have to be quick learners.
2007-01-31 12:27:15 · answer #7 · answered by DOOM 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd have to interview them both, but just from that I would say the veteran. He has more life experience, should be a better a leader and able to figure things out on his own.
2007-01-31 11:15:22 · answer #8 · answered by Curt 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I would truly hope employers would take into account not only the life experience gained, but also the service to the country, for which we all benefit. That sacrifice deserves a reward.
2007-01-31 11:14:44 · answer #9 · answered by jh 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Which ever one can get the job done. Veterans have been known to be very reliable, and I would most likely hire them.
2007-01-31 11:25:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋