Is Screening Candidates by Educational Background Really Just Prejudice?

Some time ago, I was having drinks with someone involved in hiring when the conversation turned to this subject.

“People from vocational schools seem to have a shallow approach to work. They can only do what they are told.”

By contrast, speaking of graduates from highly selective universities, this person said:

“I feel that more of them can think and act for themselves.”

Say something like this in public, and it will immediately be called discrimination based on educational background.

But it made me think about the issue a little differently.

Do companies still look at educational background simply because they are impressed by prestigious names?

University Entrance Exams Are Surprisingly Similar to Work

When you consider the process of getting into a highly selective university, what it involves is surprisingly similar to work.

You set a goal and assess the gap between that goal and your current ability. You identify your weak subjects, allocate your study time, review your practice-exam results, and adjust your approach.

Then you keep doing that for years.

No one stands beside you every day to manage the process.

You make your own plan, monitor your own progress, and correct your own course.

That is quite similar to what is expected of you after joining a company.

From a company’s perspective, therefore:

More than the result of “getting into a difficult university,” there is value in the record of “getting there under your own steam.”

Educational background can serve as a signal that someone has, at least once in the past, managed themselves in pursuit of a major goal.

For Specialized Knowledge Alone, a Vocational School Graduate May Be Better

In IT, for example, someone who spent two years programming at a vocational school may be better able to write code immediately after joining a company than someone who studied general education and theory at university.

But companies do not want only people who can perform a particular task right now.

When an unfamiliar technology appears, can they research it and learn it on their own?

When given an ambiguous assignment, can they organize it themselves?

When a problem occurs, can they act without waiting for an answer?

These situations require abilities separate from knowing a particular technology.

I suspect this is what hiring managers are actually trying to infer from a candidate’s educational background.

Then What About a University That Anyone Can Enter?

Seen this way, it also becomes clear why so-called “F-ranked” universities—Japanese universities with little or no admissions selectivity—do not provide a strong signal in hiring.

What matters is not the credential of having graduated from a university itself.

An F-ranked university does not provide that signal because its students have not gone through a demanding admissions process.

In that case, they can create a different signal during their four years at university.

For example, they might study English seriously for four years and pass Grade 1 of the EIKEN English proficiency test or score above 100 on the TOEFL iBT.

That would be a very strong signal.

At the very least, it would show that they set a goal, worked toward it over a long period, and achieved a result above a certain level.

It could be research, a professional qualification, or volunteer work.

In other words, companies are not necessarily looking at the name of the university itself.

They are asking, “Has this person ever taken on something difficult and achieved a result through their own efforts?”

Admission to a highly selective university is merely one signal that demonstrates this by the age of 18.

Hiring Ultimately Becomes a Game of Probabilities

Of course, some graduates of highly selective universities are poor performers, while some vocational school graduates are extraordinarily capable.

The problem is that companies receive enormous numbers of applications.

If they could work with every applicant for a week, they could probably make a fairly accurate judgment. But they do not have that kind of time.

They have no choice but to look at résumés, administer aptitude tests, conduct a few interviews, and make a decision.

That means the question companies ask is:

“If we hire someone who meets these conditions, are they more likely to be an excellent employee?”

This is ultimately why educational background remains difficult to eliminate from hiring.

The candidate endured the long campaign of entrance exams. They came through a certain level of competition. They developed the habit of studying independently.

Even the crude measure of educational background contains a reasonable amount of this kind of information.

Of course, it does not guarantee that someone will perform well at work.

Even so, for those who must select candidates from a large applicant pool in a short time, it is a convenient signal.

“Look at the person, not their educational background.”

We hear this often.

I agree with it too.

But if a hiring manager spoke with someone for only about 30 minutes and then confidently declared:

“I have seen through this person’s true character,”

I would trust that hiring manager even less than I trust an educational background filter.