[IPAC-List] Minimum vs Preferred Qualifications

Ronald Clare rpclare at aol.com
Thu Jan 2 18:28:11 EST 2014

Bryan is right on for many positions. We don't do a good job of validating MQs. I always challenged the Social Work programs I worked with re selection testing by stating that the first person to teach in an MSW program didn't have an MSW and, by current standards, we'd reject them as unqualified. We collectively need to figure out a better way of doing this because we need to cull the candidate pool before we can bring everyone in for some sort of job sample evaluation process.

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 2, 2014, at 5:58 PM, Bryan Baldwin <Bryan.Baldwin at doj.ca.gov> wrote:

> This is probably not an incredibly insightful comment, but does it strike anyone else that MQs—an extremely common screening tool in the public sector—are supported by, I would wager, questionable evidence as to the relationship between an increased amount of education/training and job performance? Particularly at the fine-grain level we use it? (e.g., must be exactly two years of experience)


> Combine this with the other frequently used initial tool—the resume/application—and it’s a recipe for an incredible loss of utility on the front end. It’s enough to make me want just a giant pool of candidates that have been through actual tests (unproctored or not) and throw the MQs and resumes out the window.


> Bryan Baldwin

> Personnel Officer

> California Department of Justice

> Division of Administrative Support

> (916) 322-5446


> From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org [mailto:ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org] On Behalf Of Ronald Clare

> Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 2:44 PM

> To: Graham, Erin

> Cc: ipac-list at ipacweb.org

> Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Minimum vs Preferred Qualifications


> MQ,s are minimum qualification and are best utilized in screening out candidates who ( theoretically) can't do the job. If we are "testing" all candidates who meet MQs and relying on the test to sort candidates, the no consideration is usually given for quals above the minimum (e.g. 100% written test). However, this strategy is usually used only for entry level positions. For most positions we give additional credit for E&E above the minimum either in quantity ( more Ed or exper) or quality (more specialized Ed or targeted experience). On a " pure" T&E rating, someone who just meets the minimum qual would receive a 70 (minimum passing score) folks who have additional credentials would receive additional credit. E.G. A liberal arts BA might give a 70 but a BA in Hr might get an 80 and an Ma in HR might get a 90; 3 yrs exper in customer service might be 70 but 3 yrs HR help desk might be an 80. Each consideration should. Be job driven and all considerations should be framed in advance so we don't create grading systems that are candidate driven. Sometimes more Ed or exper does not add value to success in the job and should not be considered.


> Sent from my iPad


> On Jan 2, 2014, at 2:04 PM, "Graham, Erin" <Erin.Graham at das.ohio.gov> wrote:


> I would like to find out how most public sector agencies address preferred qualifications when they have established minimum qualifications. Specifically, if you have an established level of education and experience in your minimum qualifications, would you be able to have a preferred qualification above and beyond the MQs (e.g., MQ = Bachelor’s in Business Administration, Preferred qual = MBA)? Or, do you reserve preferred qualifications for a particular skill set (e.g., experience with a specific software)?


> We currently are seeing a mixture of both in our postings, but are leaning toward preferred qualifications for a particular skill set.


> Thank you in advance for sharing.



> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

> http://nine.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list


> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://nine.pairlist.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20140102/97945707/attachment.htm

More information about the IPAC-List mailing list