Conference 7.286::digital

    The P&P makes no specific provision for action in such an event,
    Daniel.
    
    						=maggie

  Note 360.* in this conference contains a (protracted) discussion on a 
closely related topic. As I recall, the upshot was as .1 points out - 
it's your performance that counts at Digital, not your qualifications 
per se.

  Larry.

    I've been through the whole of 360.* and just thought I would like
    to throw in my two cents worth.
    
    I know for a fact that fresh Master graduates are paid more than
    fresh Bachelor graduates.  If the assumption is made that a Master
    earned during or before being employed by DEC makes no difference
    in the competence of the graduate ; then those people who earned
    higher qualifications (this is a general case), will in fact place
    themselves in a situation where moving to another company would
    be more prefarable because if they stayed in DEC, there would be
    an opportunity loss in terms of renumeration.
    
    Frequency of opportunities in vertical movement within the organisation
    vary with the size and also geographic distribution of the company.
    How many times have we heard that someone really has to move back
    east to get ahead ?  What happens if other factors; say organisational
    policies or the lack of such prevent one from doing so ?  How about
    family reasons ?
    
    Furthermore, movement to another company would not be without immediate
    benefits.  Definitely a higher salary will be negotiated with the
    new employer.  On average, the presence of "opening doors" type
    of opportunities would be the same within and without of DEC if
    by moving to another company, one is not already promoted.  Let's
    be very frank, the importance of a person to a company is proportionate
    to his salary.  The more senior; the higher your salary.  The more
    important; likewise.
    
    Therefore considering a macroscopic picture of the entire organisation
    of DEC, there will be a tendency for people who earned there higher
    qualification whilst in the employ of DEC to move out of the company.
    
    This is all very good for the person involved unless if it so happens
    that he likes working for DEC.
    
    This is not too productive for the company.  DEC spends a significant
    amount of money training its employees; the presumption is that
    the more you train someone; the bigger he is an asset to the company.
    If a person takes it upon himself to go through an extended period
    of study for just this same purpose, should he be simply
    ignored ?  Will the new employ in his place be as effective bearing
    in mind learning curves ?
    
    I think the lack of support in this area is self-defeating.  I do
    not know the extent of this potential brain-drain corporate wide
    but if what I say above doesn't make sense; then I would like to
    hear an arguement to the contrary.
    
    Thanks and regards.
    <DANIEL>
    
    

re .3:

The Digital manager is responsible for discussing and building into their 
reports job plans such training and experience as is necessary to further 
the individuals career.
I do not see any value for the company in rewarding academics for achieving 
examination and course passes which do not fit into the job plan.

Note: I avoid the word 'qualification', as this is only relevant if the 
standard acheived is a pre-requisite for the job.

Dave.

    re .3
    
    I don't believe there is much (any) difference in the offer we would
    make to a BS or MS degreed applicant in the J series (Software
    engineers).
    
    /s/ Jim Williams

    Very similar issues to what I and several others brought up in 12.38
    and thereabouts.  I was thinking more along the lines of my going
    back to school qualifying me for a DIFFERENT position, hoping that
    it would be better paid.  In my case, after getting an MSEE 
    (with no undergraduate engineering degree), to transfer from SWS
    into Engineering.  

Every employee is suppose to have access to the Policy and Procedures
    manual. If your manager doesn't have one, see your personnel
    department.

    re .4
    
    I fully agree with you when you say,
    
    > I do not see any value for the company in rewarding academics
    > for achieving examination and course passes which do not fit into
    > the job plan.
    
    Neither do I.  How about a BSEE getting employed in a related type
    job earning an MSEE ?  Or an MBA for that matter to prepare himself
    better for management ?  Obviously some guidelines must be drawn
    to determine what is relevant and irrelevant based on your current
    appointment.
    
    re .5
    
    > BS / MS who cares ?
    
    The people who pay MS more than BS do.  Similarly, if someone
    doesn't ordinarily pay an MS more than he pays a BS of similar
    experience, then I think this would be at variance with what
    most other organisations do.  The point is that they do so because
    they recognise an MS as making a person "more valuable".  The
    same way a PhD is more valuable than an MS.
    
    Put yourself in the position where you had to choose between
    employing an MS or a BS of similar background.  Who would you
    pay more ?  How much would you pay him more ?  Who would be
    more prefarable not taking salary into consideration ?
    
    Thanks and regards
    <DANIEL>
    

re .8:
    
>    Put yourself in the position where you had to choose between
>    employing an MS or a BS of similar background.  Who would you
>    pay more ?  

The salary offer would depend on the candidates current salary (or 
expectation), the job market value, the cost centre budget and the 
candidates ability to do the job (as assessed at interview).

>How much would you pay him more ?  

See above.

>Who would be more prefarable not taking salary into consideration ?
    
The candidate who showed the best potential in terms of skills to do the 
job and who would best fit into the current organisation.
Once past the pre-interview stage academic achievement would not be taken 
into account. For a post requiring job experience, academic achievement may 
not be taken into account even in the pre-interview stage. I would be more 
interested in an individuals reasons for pursuing academic achievement and
skills learned that are applicable to the job than the level of such an 
achievement.

Dave.

RE:  .8

I get the impression that at DEC, its what you produce and not howmany degrees
you have.  If you schooling results in you producing more, then it will
come out in the wash anyway.  For example, if you have a PHD but don't produce
anything useful, why should a manager pay you more.  If you don't have a
college degree and you should wrote all the microcode for a new VAX, you
should be paid more.

John

    re:.8
    
    In general I've found a BS CS and MS CS to be interchangeable. 
    
    They both (assuming just out of college) need about the same ramp
    up.  The variation between candidates with the same degree is as
    large as between candidates with different degrees.  In other words,
    I don't think the MS CS adds much, if any, to the usefulness of
    the person.
    
    I also believe that the college hire starting salaries of Software
    Engineers were the same for both degrees.
    
    /s/ Jim Williams

    I have both a BS and an MS in CS.  I had very little other experience,
    and I was told at my interview that the MS swung them into making an
    offer for what was a very junior entry level position.  So it adds some
    value.  Not much.

    Susan

    re .9:
    
    >> ..... similar background .....
             ==================
    
    In any situation concerning upgrading of an employee in terms
    of promotion or salary review; achievement and seniority must
    be maintained as the most important factors for assessment.
    
    I am merely stating that if DEC accords to someone who comes
    in with an M*, a higher salary, then someone who gets an M*
    whilst working for DEC should be similarly recognised.
    
    .11 says that fresh out BS and MS hires for software engineering
    posts start out with the same salary.  Is this true with the
    whole company ?  Can someone tell me definitely that this is
    DEC hiring policy ?
    
    Thanks and regards.
    <DANIEL>
    
    

    There is no policy, per se.  My experience is of offering MS graduates
    SWEngineerII to start, rather than SWEngineerI.
    
    						=maggie

What does a degree do for you?

Well, basically, all it will do is open doors to interviews for you.   After
that, you may as well hang it back up on the wall.   

Once you are in the interview process, it will depend on how well you are at 
convincing the hiring manager that you are the right person for the job.  If
you are the right person, or at least _could be_ the right person, you may
also be able to negotiate a larger salary with an MS than a BS, in practice,
but not because of the degree itself.  If you have an MS, you have more doors
that you can open than with a BS.  Thus, if you are the right candidate for a
job, (which implies that the company wants to hire you), you will be in a 
better position to negotiate a higher salary than a person with a BS, *ONLY*
because the company may recognize the number of other doors that will be open
to you.   This will not, however, give you unlimited leverage, and there is
always the old "overqualified" out to reject you with if you set your 
expectations too high.

Once integrated into the workforce, the effect of your degree becomes less and
less, and the effect of your experience and performance quickly overshadow the
piece of paper you've worked so hard to obtain!

After 3-5 years in the industry, the degree becomes little more than a 
"tie-breaker" between candidates regarded as "equally qualified."   It does, 
however, maintain its ability to open an occasional "extra" door, and once
earned, a degree can never be taken away.

Work experience/performance will be the greater factor in advancement and
compensation.  It will far outdistance any implied excellence of a degree.
However, performance is a temporary plus and must be constatly refreshed.
"That was Yesterday, what have you done for me Today?", etc.   Also, socio-
political events will have a profound impact on your career.

For Digital to reward someone for the completion of a degree program would
be highly inconsistant within the industry.  So a policy to do so is not
warranted.  The exception, of course, is if the degree was a specific goal
set forth in the employees job plan as required for that job.  Then, the
rewards, if any, for meeting a job goal would apply.

Rewards are not bestowed upon Degree holders because they hold those degrees.
The Degree is only a key to many doors.

If I were you, Daniel, I would concentrate on work performance and gather as
much experience as possible.  Be sure that you have a clear plan in place to
achieve your next position, and strive to meet that challenge.  With the
power of your new degree, there are now more doors that you may try ...
and therein lies your reward.

Bob Deep

    All things being equal the MS brings a higher starting salary.
    
    The "things" I'm refering to are 1)school 2)area of concentration
    3)Co-Op experience/summer employment.
    
    In the case of foreign nationals (F-1 visa) the MS make the difference
    between being intrviewed/hired and going back to country of origin.
    
    Jim is correct in saying that both BS and MS degree individuals
    will require the same "start-up" time. You could also lump ALL new
    employees into that category. The expectation of the MS candidates
    is that they will bring more the the "party", clearly not always
    the case, but clearly always the expectation. I once hired a BS
    level candidate that had already been granted a patent, so
    generalizations are not to be taken seriously, the key phrase is
    "all thing being equal".
    
    Bill.

    Well stated. True enough here, I hope elsewhere in Digital also.

    [.5]: "BS/MS who cares?" [reply title]
    
    [.9]:  "For a post requiring job experience... I would be more
    interested in an individuals (sic) reasons for pursuing academic
    achievements and skills learned that are applicable to the job than
    the level of such an achievement."
    
    Many of the replies here have surprised me.  Do I detect a whiff
    of anti-academic bias here?

    I think that what you learn in school has value, and that if you
    earn an advanced degree in a work-related field, your performance
    should improve.  That is at least an indirect benefit to you.  Further,
    I think the effort to earn an advanced degree reflects favorably
    on your motivation and work habits.
    
    Let me cite our site.  Upper management around here tells us we
    are *expected* to take a certain number of (professional) courses
    per quarter.  If we don't, we're told, we get obsolete.  Even in
    these cautious times, high-ranking managers have stood up in public
    meetings and said money is available for education.  Digital, like
    many other high-tech companies, has a 100% tuition reimbursement
    program for work-related schooling.
    
    If degrees aren't worth earning, why does Digital pay for them?

re: .-1  [Why does Digital pay for education?]

a couple of reasons offhand...

  1.)  It keeps Digital competitive with other firms who do.
  2.)  It is tax deducatable.


Earning a degree is no longer an accurate measure of a persons ability to 
perform a given task.   Industry is too fast paced and diversified for
academia to keep up.  Work experience/performance is the key indicator of 
a persons ability to perform in an industrial environment.

By earning a degree, a person is demonstrating an ability to accomplish a
task within the constrains of a system and according to a set of rules...
This is a valuable skill.   However, it does not transfer from academia to
industry without modification, and I have seen some who are unable to make
that transition.   Managers, however, are at a loss for a more accurate
measure of "green" candidates, and will therefore have to default back to
the established traditions.

In this industry, 3-5 years of good experience/performance is more valuable
than any diploma...  And thats the way it should be, because anyone can get 
a diploma!

    Re .19:
    
    > Earning a degree is no longer an accurate measure of a persons
    > ability to perform a give task.  Industry is too fast paced and
    > diversified for academia to keep up.
    
    I beg to differ.  Although I wouldn't go all the way and say that
    academia is "ahead" of industry, I would like to point out that
    many of the key concepts and even some products are developed
    within the universities.  I cannot speak for the powers that be
    but I believe that DEC has always recognised this, hence the close
    relationship with universities and colleges around DEC sites.
    
    If industry is too fast paced for academia to keep up, then what
    about the solitary individual left to his own resources ?  I
    suppose the next arguement would be whether attending courses
    gives you the relevant perspectives.  I remember reading in the
    IEEE Spectrum sometime back about EEs going obsolete in five
    years AFTER they graduate.  So in a lighter vein, going back to
    school would give me a further shot of five years; maybe more
    because this time it's a postgraduate degree.
    
    Taking this arguement further, there are some centers of fundamental
    research going on in industry today.  But guess who are the people
    leading all this fundamental research ?  People with advanced
    degrees !  Here again I must be cautious and state categorically
    that I have no way of proving this but show me something along the
    lines of Bell Labs and TJ Watson Research Laboratory with only BS's
    in them.  Open a Digital Technical Journal, guess who are all those
    people smiling at you through the photographs ?
    
    I reiterate that I have no arguements about seniority and job
    performance.  If .19 says that anybody can get diplomas, then
    let them and after they do so, show them that a progressive company
    cares about progress and appreciates it when their employees spend
    that little bit more effort to get ahead.
    
    Thanks and regards.
    <DANIEL>
            

    If you check out the academic credentials of some prominent
    Digital (Sr.) Corporate Consultants, you might be surprised.
    The discipline of a degree program helps some people; others
    don't need it.  I think Digital takes the right approach: make
    it easy to pursue further education, but evaluate employees
    in terms of their on-the-job performance.
    
    MATT

<>    Re .19:
<>    
<>    > Earning a degree is no longer an accurate measure of a persons
<>    > ability to perform a give task.  Industry is too fast paced and
<>    > diversified for academia to keep up.
<>    
<>    I beg to differ.  Although I wouldn't go all the way and say that
<>    academia is "ahead" of industry, I would like to point out that
<>    many of the key concepts and even some products are developed
<>    within the universities.  I cannot speak for the powers that be
<>    but I believe that DEC has always recognised this, hence the close
<>    relationship with universities and colleges around DEC sites.


With the exception of post graduate specialized research, which is primarily
industry funded as a logical extension of industry R&D, (but with desirable
tax benefits,) I will stand by my claim that industry remains ahead of 
academia on the "bleeding edge" of technology.   Thats my opinion, and if 
there are others who care to discuss it further, we can take it to the 
Soapbox... but in the interest of the rest of the people reading this file,
I'd like to stay with the original idea of company policy regarding an 
employee who earns a higher academic standing while employed by DEC.

As I said in my earlier note (.15),  it is not necessary for DEC to compensate
an employee for earning a degree, just because new hires with that same degree
may start at a higher rate.  I believe the original analogy of the "doors"
should suffice as explaination for my thinking.

Obviously, your manager determined that you were able to meet your job 
requirments without an additional degree, of you would not have gotten the
job.  If the degree was required, it would have been stated as such in your
performance plan.   

You have received an extra benefit from DEC, in that your newly earned degree
was paid for by the Tuition Reimbursment Plan.   That, coupled with your new
opportunities for future advancement is substantial compensation.

Aside:   Digital's close relationships with universities and colleges has
         a lot to do with marketing strategy ... If I learned on a DEC
         computer in college, I am more likly to chose the machine I am
         familiar with when I get to industry.  As for R&D programs at
         universities, I mentioned earlier the tax benefits involved which
         make that option desirable.

    I am well aware that there are people right at the top who don't
    have advanced degrees.  Digital is definitely right about promoting
    people based on their capabilities and not on their academic
    qualifications.  I personally would not like to work for a company
    that promoted people solely on academic qualifications or seniority
    alone.
    
    Digital is a company involved in what people term euphemistically
    as "high technology".  Do we or don't we need to have a highly
    competent workforce ?  Do we or don't we invest a great deal in
    training our employees ?  Do we or don't we pay MS's more than
    BS's and PhD's more than MS's or start people with different
    qualifications on different levels ?
    
    So why discriminate on whether an employee earns his degree before
    or during his employ with DEC ?
    
    I have already covered the issue of "new opportunities" by pointing
    out that these are dependent on many other factors like geographical
    distribution, family commitments, restrictions, size and depth of
    the organisation etc.
    
    If my employer has deemed my qualifications on employment sufficent
    for the purposes of my job, thus making redundant any extra
    qualifications I may obtain; then on obtaining those qualifications
    I have one of two alternatives :-
    
    	1.   Find a job which requires those qualifications in DEC.
    	Failing which ...
    	2.   Find a job which requires those qualifications outside
    	DEC.
    
    I have also already pointed out that this is well and good if I
    don't like working for DEC.  But what if I do ?  I have also
    mentioned that considering an overall picture of the company, faced
    with the alternative of a probable future opportunity or a concrete
    job offer, more people would go for the bird in hand.
    
    Do we or don't we want to lose these experienced people who have
    taken it upon their own initiative to make themselves more effective
    in their jobs ?
    
    Are we arguing that having an extra degree does not make one more
    efficent in his job ?  If I am an EE and I get an MSEE.
    Doesn't that make me a more knowledgeable EE ?  If on average,
    MSs are more knowledgeable, will they not on average contribute
    more to the company ?
    
    I am not here to lament pathetically about pay or oppotunities.
    Neither am I here to champion the cause of those who work for
    higher qualifications but are not recognised by their employers.
    
    I write here because I perceive that there is an issue here that
    must be addressed and the issue is this; if we do not recognise
    those experienced employees who have on their own initiative,
    improved themselves academically so as to be more efficent in
    their careers, then we are going to loose valuable people all
    because they made themselves more valuable.
    
    Please forgive me if I sound as though I am flaming, but I am
    always pretty passionate about things I believe in and I believe
    in progress.
    
    Thanks and regards.
    <DANIEL>
    

    re .22
    
    You are entitled to your opinion, but please don't leave the impression
    that we have relationships with universities just for selling systems
    and for avoiding taxes.
    
    There are many areas of science in which Digital is not invested,
    and some will have *enormous* effects on computing in the future.
    We could not understand them, let alone leverage them, without these
    relationships. Many of the best ideas that we search, discuss and
    consider for R&D have nothing to do with our university discount
    programs; they center around dedicated people doing interesting
    things in another environment. 
    
    As for degrees, we can read them as a statement of accomplishment.
    I'd rather discuss future technologies with someone who cared enough
    about his work to finish it, than with someone who just spent time
    in a department.

    re .23
    
    When we hire someone, we have to "estimate" on the worth of that
    individual's work to Digital.  Sometimes a factor in that estimate
    is the presense / absence of a particular degree, sometimes it isn't.
    
    When we have an existing employee we "estimate" (hopefully more
    accurately) by that individual's current contribution to Digital.
    
    If you get an(other) degree while at Digital and this causes your
    contribution to increase one would assume that your compensation
    would increase as well.
    
    If you get an(other) degree while at Digital and this causes no
    change in your contribution ...
    
    I believe that for a current employee, compensation should be based
    on performance, not on "external" factors, liked degrees.
    
    /s/ Jim Williams

>    re .22
>    
>    You are entitled to your opinion, but please don't leave the impression
>    that we have relationships with universities just for selling systems
>    and for avoiding taxes.

 Primary or even secondary motivations are not intended to be exclusive.
 Sorry if I left the wrong impression.  8-)


>    As for degrees, we can read them as a statement of accomplishment.
>    I'd rather discuss future technologies with someone who cared enough
>    about his work to finish it, than with someone who just spent time
>    in a department.

 I think we agree, but statements of accomplishment in one's job are more of
a contribution to the company, and thus more deserving of recognition, than
are statements of accomplishment in academia, which is more of a contribution
to one's self.  By the time you've earned a degree, you have already been 
rewarded, for the goal of education is knowlege.

    One doesn't get an advanced degree over night. That is to say that
    the day someone hands you a paper doesn't make you measurably more
    qualified then you were the day before. One assumes that as you
    work towards the degree you do become more qualified. A good manager
    will see that that improvement is rewarded as time passes. If this
    is done then some kind of automatic raise the day you get your paper
    is unnecessary. If this is not done then you have a different problem;
    a bad manager.
    
    I know someone working as a S/W engineer who is working on a degree
    part time. As they learn (at work and at school) they are receiving
    better raises and promotions. When they get their degree there 
    qualifications will not have changed all at once. Neither will or
    should their compensation.
    
    			Alfred

	In reading between the lines it sounds as if Daniel has either just
	comleted a MS program and has found out he's not going to realize a
	BIG raise for doing so.  In his unhappy state he is trying to justify
	his working very hard to get that degree.  Your reward is not $$$ but
	the satisfaction & knowledge that you achieved something special.  The
	question is "what is it worth to the company" ?  As most everyone has
	pointed out, it's not worth much at DEC.  If I went out and volunteered
	my time as a programmer or research analyst or something for 4-6 years
	should I get a raise based on that experience ? 


	Chuck

    Chuck, you are pretty adapt at reading in between the lines.
    
    Let's say Joe Engineer ...  Joe Engineer gets his college
    degree in engineering because he likes engineering.  Not because
    the money's great; if money were really that important to him,
    he'd probably major in business or something like that.  Joe
    Engineer meets and falls in love with this company and he
    stays employed for the next say five years or so.  Now Joe
    Engineer is not really ambitious; if he were ambitious, he'd
    probably pack his bags and head for Hollywood or Washington DC.,
    but he is just ambitious enough to want to improve himself in
    his chosen profession.  So he goes out and works for a
    postgraduate degree at the local IVU.  He does this say for the
    next four years.  Now all the while, lets say he has managed to
    keep his end of things and perhaps some would say he has done
    pretty well.  He gets his post graduate and that gives him a lot
    of satisfaction, yes sir!  On the way to getting his second degree,
    Joe Engineer got a wife.  Now Joe Engineer is not a fussy person,
    neither does he have expensive tastes.  The last time he had caviar
    was when the supermarket held a promotion; Joe Engineer had a bad
    case of diarrhoea for a whole week after that. But he wants to be able
    to provide for Mrs Engineer and any Junior Engineers that might
    be on the way.  So money does become important to him.
    
    Joe Engineer's dilemma is that he knows that if he goes to another
    company, he could probably get a higher paying job.  On the other
    hand, he does not want to leave the company because he has made lots
    of friends in many places and besides, he is kind of keen on the
    free use of networking facilities.
    
    The point is that there are experienced people like Joe Engineer
    who are placed in such a position.  I will not say that mammon
    is totally unimportant to me.  In todays world; no mammon means
    no manna and a lot of other things too.  So back to Joe Engineer,
    if there are 100 experienced people like Joe Engineer, then we
    stand to lose that 100 people from the job they are good at all
    because they have got an advanced degree.  The ironic thing is
    that all the time spending back at IVU has probably made them
    better at their work.  This again has to be reviewed case by
    case and sweeping statements like "all MS are better than BS"
    have as much truth as "all BS are just as good as all MS".
    
    If we take away the Engineer and substitute jobs like Specialist,
    Technician, Programmer etc., if we forget about the college
    degree and substitute qualifications like associate degree,
    high school, PhD.  If we consider the company to be a multinational
    corporation with >40,000 employees world-wide.  100 would be a
    conservative estimate.
    
    I guess that the important thing is that a reassessment of the
    situation has to be made after such a change. Supervisors can
    help by suggesting where the employee can best contribute to the
    company and at the same time, best contribute to their own family
    incomes.
    
    Thanks and regards.
    <DANIEL>
    
                      

>                          -< Joe Engineer's dilemma >-
>
>    Joe Engineer's dilemma is that he knows that if he goes to another
>    company, he could probably get a higher paying job.  On the other
>    hand, he does not want to leave the company because he has made lots
>    of friends in many places and besides, he is kind of keen on the
>    free use of networking facilities.
    

This is a typical situation that people have to face when juggling careers
and lifestyles.  No one can make the decisions for you, and the company is
not and should not part the waters to make it any easier.  It is becoming
more and more apparent as this topic continues that Joe is going to stay
with DEC, regardless of the outcome of his current dilemma.  And if he
doesn't, then DEC (i.e. Joe's Manager) has to decide if Joe is worth keeping.

There isn't a Joe anywhere in the company that can't be replaced... unless
Joe's last name is Olsen.   8-)

BTW... If you think Joe has it bad... How about Joe2, who not only has to 
plan a path for his own career, but has to make it coincide with Mrs. Joe2's
career!  Then the fun really starts!

If Joe is patient and really learned something at school, it will certainly
help Joe's *performance* and Joe will eventually see some money (when Joe's
going to school will actaully help the company).

John

    I have to sympathize with "Joe Engineer".  I came to DEC 12 years
    ago with a BS, and earned my MS at night school, one course a semester
    (except semesters when I had no money: when I first bought my house,
    and when I got divorced).  If I had come into DEC with the degree,
    I would have been offered a higher starting salary.  If I had been
    rated the same as I was actually rated at my reviews, I would have
    a higher salary today.  I guess I have sort of accepted this
    phenomenon, as "Jane Engineer", because I knew that this is the
    way it is unless I chose to leave DEC, and because the MS was worth
    earning for my own personal benefit even with no financial benefit;
    as "Joe Engineer" reports, if I were primarily interested in money,
    I would have earned an MBA instead, but obviously I didn't.  It
    is possible, too, that I would not have been offered my current
    position in DEC when my old position was un-funded (de-funded? They
    cancelled the money...) if I hadn't gotten the advanced degree,
    but I'm also pretty sure that I would have been offered it whether
    I earned the degree while I was working here or before I came.
    You would think that a more recent degree, in a field that changes
    as fast as software engineering has changed, would actually be worth
    more to the company, since so much of the older information would
    be obsolete by now (if I had earned my MS before I came here, that
    degree would be more than 12 years old); I guess this is what is
    bothering Daniel.

    Another problem with "night school" is that while you are working
    on that advanced degree it is tough to maintain your performance
    level where it was when you had "nothing better" to do with your
    time. I am in that position now, taking two classes a semester and
    trying very hard to keep up with family obligations as well as keeping
    my excitment and productivity in my current job. While my supervisor
    and manager are sympathetic, my performance just cannot be where
    it was when I was not going to school. That results in lower salary
    review ratings and lower salary increases (not that I can afford
    to have them go any lower and they would have been already). Therefore
    with lower increases during the period I am going to school and no direct
    recognition for getting the degree I will be in a double hole at
    the end of the process and my family suffers for my effort of getting
    an advanced degree. I'm not so sure this was the right thing to do.
    
    				Dick
    

>    < Note 449.28 by CSSE32::APRIL "Snowmobilers .... UNITE !" >
>                       -< Here's a different twist ... >-
>
>
>	In reading between the lines it sounds as if Daniel has either just
>	comleted a MS program and has found out he's not going to realize a
>	BIG raise for doing so.  In his unhappy state he is trying to justify
>	his working very hard to get that degree.  Your reward is not $$$ but
>	the satisfaction & knowledge that you achieved something special.
>
    	
    Reading between the lines cuts both ways.
    
    Of those who argue against paying more for a more educated person, what
    fraction do not have advanced degrees?  I'll bet the fraction is large. 
    
    
    jdr

    Digital must put value on the benefit of having/attaining an advanced
    degree.  If it didn't, there would not be programs like the GEEP.
    

    That's a relatively new program - I had already slowly gotten my
    M.S. at night school long before it existed, and long after I came
    to work at DEC.  Also, I don't think there is any commitment made
    to people who do go through the GEEP program (I only know one person
    who did, but he works in Europe, so he's hard to ask) that they
    will receive a promotion or any monetary recognition of having done
    so - although it is quite a benefit to have DEC pay for it at all...the
    reason I did not take night school courses some semesters when I
    was broke was that DEC did not pay your commuting costs or your
    books (later they started paying for something like the first $15
    of the books - which didn't go far even then; may be different today)
    and did not reimburse you for the course until you got the grade
    for it, so you had to cough up several hundred dollars a semester;
    some semesters I didn't have any cash to spare.
    
    Oh, well, you need to get a manager to comment on this whole note,
    not us Joe/Jane types.

    I'm not against "advanced" degrees, I just think that, in general,
    the degree "itself" should not be the basis of a salary action,
    rather that the degree should contribute to better performance which
    should be the basis of a salary action.
    
    Another, as yet unmentioned, problem may be the one of the "prophet
    in his own country" syndrome.
    
    The inprovement in performance may be gradual as one progresses
    on a degree program and therefore be essentially unnoticed.  (So
    Joe has now got an MS, he doesn't seem any different today than
    he was yesterday(s).)
    
    [If you want some attention / money, try patenting something or
    even getting an article published.]
    
    /s/ Jim Williams

	I am currently in the GEEP and there is no commitment by the GEEP 
	or anyone else that you will receive a raise and/or a promotion 
	after you return from your academic experience. 

	It is not the degree that GEEP values, but the learning experience
	and the university environment. (Although you are required to 
	enter a degree program with GEEP. )

	I have stayed out of this note, but I truely agree with Alfred.
	Learning does not occur when they hand you the degree. If you 
	are getting something out of an advanced degree program, this
	should show in your work. The problem with learning is that we
	often can't put our hands around what we have learned and how 
	we go about applying that new knowledge.

	And of course, if the new knowledge and skills show up in your 
	work then you should be compensated as you progress through your 
	degree program.

	Someone mentioned that their performance was *not-up-to-normal-
	levels-of-greatness* (in my own words) due to the fact that they
	were pursuing an advanced degree and taking two/three etc, courses.
	My answer to this is take less of a course load. 

	Although the degree may look nice on your resume, it is just 
	a degree. The key is learning.

	It is real easy to get caught up in academia and just take courses
	such that you get the degree (I.E. Working the system) but this does
	not seem worth the effort to me.

	It's all what you know and how you apply it.

	Oh well back to my studies...

/Ted
        

    Having been on *both* sides of this argument (I earned my MS part-time,
    and have been a manager/supervisor of people with and without degrees
    performing the same work, and some earning degrees part-time), I'd like
    to address some of these issues... 
    
    First, there are very few jobs at Digital where a degree is required;
    what is required is proof of a certain level of knowledge/skill/aptitude.  
    The usual way of demonstrating this is by completing a degree program 
    related to that field.  Another way is by actually performing the
    work.  (Yes, I know, catch-22, right?  Well, not really.) 
    
    A degree is a long-term investment in yourself.  If you're looking for
    instant gratification, forget it.  The benefits of a (an additional)
    degree come only after you apply your new knowledge in a way which
    benefits Digital.  After all, it's not what you know, but how you use
    it that matters. 
    
    After I completed my MS, I changed employers (the reasons have nothing
    to do with the degree).  I got my new job in part because of the degree
    (made me better qualified than other candidates), but at the same
    salary that someone without the degree would have received. 
    
    Bruce

>< Note 449.35 by TALLIS::DEROSA "I := not(number)" >
>                            -< A twist to a twist >-
>
>>    < Note 449.28 by CSSE32::APRIL "Snowmobilers .... UNITE !" >
>>                       -< Here's a different twist ... >-
>>
>>
>>	In reading between the lines it sounds as if Daniel has either just
>>	comleted a MS program and has found out he's not going to realize a
>>	BIG raise for doing so.  In his unhappy state he is trying to justify
>>	his working very hard to get that degree.  Your reward is not $$$ but
>>	the satisfaction & knowledge that you achieved something special.
>>
>    	
>    Reading between the lines cuts both ways.
>    
>    Of those who argue against paying more for a more educated person, what
>    fraction do not have advanced degrees?  I'll bet the fraction is large. 
>    
>    
>    jdr


	You win your bet as far as I am concerned.  No, I don't have an advanced
	degree.  In fact, I don't have ANY degree.  Do I now deserve a cut in 
	pay or a reduction in my responsibilities or job title ?  That's why I
	added the little example of volunteering rather than going to school to
	get better educated.  There are A LOT of people who think school is the
	be-all-end-all of a person's worth (especially in a technical world).
	Although I did well in school (A's & B's in High School and 3.0 GPA in
	post secondary education) I was NOT HAPPY in the academic environment.

	I am not trying to minimize the 'Joe Engineer' approach to bettering 
	his knowledge via an advanced degree.  Please don't belittle mine.
	I'm from Missouri --- SHOW ME YOU CAN DO THE JOB.  DON'T TELL ME YOU
	CAN DO IT.  


	Chuck

          <<< HUMAN::DISK$HUMANWORK1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The DEC way of working >-
================================================================================
Note XXX.0                          new view                             1 reply
JAWS::WHITNEY                                        31 lines   8-FEB-1988 15:40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       I have a bird's eye view of this (actually a bird's dropping
    view). I received my B.S. in spring of 1985. I was working
    part time DEC security when I graduated. After 6+ months of
    looking for a full time job within DEC, I finally got one. 
    Two and a half years later, I am still wage class 2 and 3k
    below the minimum salary for a wage class 4 position. During
    the past few years, Digital implements the "New College Hire"\
    program, which places recent college grads (grad date within
    6 months, no exceptions) into wage class 4 level 4 positions.
    Digital's statement; we believe people sacraficing 4 years of
    their time and money to better themselves, are worth this 
    amount of money to us. 
       Problem; I can't even get an interview for a wage class
    4 position. The unplanned promotion cut they would have to 
    pay is too much. They can always justify choosing other applicant's
    to interview. The way I see it, I should have started my career
    a level 4 and now, 2 1/2 years later I'd be close to level 6
    material. As it stands, I'm still under 20k, over 2 years behind
    career schedule, 1/3 finished the MBA program(part time nights),
    and close to choosing a new employer ( I have been interviewing
    outside for 2 months and have several offers all in the mid to
    upper 20's)
    
       I did not want to leave the company but I have a family and
    future to provide for. All this because I cannot accept a 
    certain monetary increase due to corporate policy. I had to get
    this in print before I leave the company. I have talked to
    corporate about this and they "insist" this should not be
    happening to me. None the less, it is and unfortunately has
    cost me a great deal of money and self confidence.
    

RE: .42

	I understand your frustration.  I'm in a similar situation.
	I'm a system manager (D42? Assoc. Systems Analyst. God only
	knows what level)  A number of years ago I went from an
	ECO Coordinator II to a Computer Operator I due to some
	difficulties I was having with a s(t)upervisor I had
	to get away from. No matter, I made more $$ as an Op I
	due to differential and OT. I then went to an Op II
	position but was maxing out even then.  I was also well
	above an Op II technically. That's how I got the current
	job. Personnel didn't "want" me here cuz "it was too much of
	a jump".. (Like they know the technical details) Anyways, I
	got here after 3 months of hassle with Personnel and have
	since pulled off two "1" ratings.  The only trouble is is that
	I made $5k more in '86 as an Op II than I did as a system manager
	in '87.  Now HOPEFULLY this JEC stuff (that I can't fill out
	a JOQ for due to my WC2 status) will help correct that and
	put me more in line with others in my position. My current
	supervisor has really tried to do right by me but in order
	for them at my last review to give me a promotion to
	Systems Analyst, which I think I deserved, they would have had 
	to have given me a 20% raise.. Push that thru Personnel!
	Needless to say, I didn't get it. (I DID get a good raise 
	percentage wise but not $$ wise cuz of my current low salary!)

	The price I have had to pay to further my career has almost
	put me under both financially and mentally. If it doesn't
	get straightened out after JEC then I too may be forced to
	say goodbye to DEC. (As much as I don't want too AT ALL)

	Bottom line: You're not alone. There are others that are
	suffering because of our career decisions. It's not right,
	it shouldn't be happening, but it is. The hope of many is
	that JEC will help this in most cases. I don't get my
	hopes up. I'll just see what happens and base any decision
	on what happens in June.

						mike

    re: .41:
    .
    .
    .
>    	I am not trying to minimize the 'Joe Engineer' approach to bettering 
>	his knowledge via an advanced degree.  Please don't belittle mine.
>	I'm from Missouri --- SHOW ME YOU CAN DO THE JOB.  DON'T TELL ME YOU
>	CAN DO IT.  
>
    
    Please turn down the blowtorch.  I was not belittling anyone.  I
    was making the observation that it is disingenuous to suggest
    that there may be self-serving logic on *one* side of this discussion.

    Being smart is good; being smarter is better.  Education, in whatever
    form it occurs, is obviously a good thing.  I'll ensure that on-the-job
    education is in my list if you ensure that a PhD is in yours. 
    
    jdr

    This topic relates to me in the following way:
    
    	I am a Software Specialist III (even though I don't work in
    the field...strange, huh?) among Software Engineers. I recently
    discovered (I won't divulge how) that at least one of the SE's
    was making about 30% more than I was and we do the EXACT same
    job.
    
    I approached my manager about it and was told there were inequities
    in the department and that it was being "worked". This was almost
    a year ago way before I ever heard of JEC. Well, I just received
    my review and the resulting raise was higher than average. So I
    guess you could say management "IS" working the pay inequity issue.
    (It won't solve the problem if my peers get the same type of raise).
    
    My hope is that the JEC process will change my job code to a SE
    type even though I do not have a degree. I just have LOTS of experience
    with a multitude of systems and software. 
    
    I too feel it is not fair to pay me less than my peers merely because
    my job title is different. And the issue of "must have a degree"
    to become a SE better not become an issue or there will be hell
    to pay where I work. I have given 150% to DIGITAL for over 9 years
    and have ALWAYS had 1 or 2 ratings. I am at a loss to explain how
    I am behind by 1/3 on the pay scale. [Incidently, I did an informal
    industry study of several periodical surveys that tried to show
    who made what by industry, job classification, locations, etc.,
    and THAT TOO showed I was behind on the pay scale].
    
    I guess only time will tell. I'm looking forward to see what I'm
    going to get classified in. I hope it isn't what some of the other
    entries in other topics fear the JEC process might be.
    
    I wish all of you that have come up in the world minus the degree
    the best of luck. We work for a company that treats us better than
    most.
    
    								Warren

Notice also that on the Job Overview Questionnaire, (JOQ), for JEC, there
is no specific place where you are asked to list your degree(s).  The only
concern is for the job you perform.  Therefore, if you are doing the same 
work as the guy/girl next to you, you should have the same title.

Sounds like a fair system to me.  Degrees are nice to have but having more
of them than the next person doesn't make you a better contributor.

    But recall that in the "internal use only" 5x7 pamphlet, they indicated
    that "qualifications" was one of the inputs and I would suspect
    that some of the jobs in DEC have educational qualifications.
    
    /s/ Jim Williams

    I would like to suggest an analogy.  A person owns a house.  He
    pays property taxes on that house.  Some of those property taxes
    go to support public elementary and high schools.  However, this
    person is childless.  Can he get out of paying the taxes because
    he has no kids?  No.

    Taxes paid to support public schools are not "tuition" to pay for
    one's own kids; the taxes are to support the whole idea of public
    education.  We all benefit through our public education system.

    Getting back to the matter at hand, a particular individual who
    obtains an advanced degree may or may not exhibit increased
    productivity.  But the "business world" collectively needs to
    reward people who get advanced degrees.  Otherwise, few people
    would go through the sacrifices necessary to earn such degrees.
    The business world as a whole benefits when significant numbers
    of employees obtain advanced degrees.  Consequently the business
    world as a whole should provide incentives and rewards for such
    people.  So companies usually have employee education reimbursement
    programs, etc. to encourage people to go back to school.  Also,
    many companies hire in people who have advanced degrees at a
    higher salary, or give extra raises to people who have just finished
    their advanced degrees.  The reason companies do this--or should
    do this--is because it helps the business world as a whole.
    
    You have heard probably that one reason the Japanese workforce is
    such a tough competitor is that their people are more highly educated.
    The United States needs to work incentives into the "system" so
    that the educational level our workforce is second to none.
    Employees returning part-time to academia causes cross-pollination
    of ideas between academia and industry, to the benefit of both.



        
    
     

    My manager suggested to all of us that he felt that the J.O.Q. should
    have included a section on the qualifications (education, experience,
    etc.) needed to effectively do the work.  He suggested that those
    of us who agreed with him on the point should include this information
    in the 2-page area allocated for "Other" on the form.  Since I didn't
    otherwise manage to think of anything that belonged on those pages
    anyhow, I did so.  And I do agree that it seems to be an oversight
    on the questionnaire, at least for an enigneering position (I am
    a principal software engineer).

    Didn't the JEC questionnaire ask what skills were needed to do your
    job?  
    
    Perhaps you could have worded your answer in such a way as to include
    the skills you obtained through the advanced education program.
    
    I have read all the responses to this note and I'm all for rewarding
    people when they deserve it.  Sometimes though, I think some people
    use their advanced degrees as an indication that they are better
    than others who have learned their skills the hard way.  The peope
    I would not want to be rewarded (regardless of degree level) are
    those that sit on their laurels pointing to their degrees and do
    nothing all day, but expouse theory.  These people get nothing done!
    
    If a person has a degree and uses the skills learned to do their
    job, then by all means, give that person the raise they deserve.
    
    Diana

    re: .48
    Digital policy is pay for performance.  We do other things to encourage
    people to continue their education - e.g. the GEEP program and tuition
    reimbursement.  Personally, I like it that way.
    	Dee

    
    Acknowledge effort.
    Reward acheivements.
                        
    Education is a grand effort one 
    that should be acknowledge through
    the reimbursement of cost.
    
    Exceptional performance of ones job
    is a grand acheivement one that should
    be rewarded through salary considerations.
    
    Many people know things they never do.
    Where is the value in that?
    
    	cbc
    

    In the early days of the computing industry there was such a demand
    for personnel that formal education was not important.  As the field
    matures, education will become more and more important.  Look at
    aerospace/defense:  Degrees are prerequisites to work there in any
    significant capacity.
    
    We need to look at the minds of employees as CORPORATE ASSETS.
    To think only in terms of someone's immediate productivity (lines
    of code per day, etc.) on his current project is very shortsighted.  
    
    Hiring educated minds is an investment.   

< Note 449.53 by LABC::FRIEDMAN >

>    matures, education will become more and more important.  Look at
>    aerospace/defense:  Degrees are prerequisites to work there in any
>    significant capacity.

    The aerospace, defense, auto, and chemical industries are very heavily
    unionized in both their skilled and non-skilled workforce.  A personnel
    manager at Ford Aerospace once told me that their degree requirements
    were directly due to union intervention.

    Some states' right-to-work and open-shop laws do not always allow
    companies to stipulate degrees:  hence the phrase "equivalent work
    experience" is found in a lot of help-wanted ads (especially here
    in Texas).
    
    Geoff 

    
    RE: .53
    
    In the early days of computing, there were only degree types involved.
    The moniker 'Field Service Engineer' was coined by the fact that
    design engineers worked the field to effect repairs.
    With it's explosive growth, more and more non-degree people were
    hired because they had the ability to do the work required. The
    rise of some of these people over the years has been obvious. 
    None of these successes, however, eliminates the need for employees
    with formal, higher education.
    

    
    Those with degrees who apply their knowledge/skill are very valuable.
    
    Those with degrees who do not apply their knowledge/skill have no value.
    
    Those without degrees who apply their knowledge/skill as well as the
    knowledge of others are invaluable! :-)  (that's why tech's are never
    fully compensated)
    
    Those who cannot apply knowledge are unvaluable.

    		cbc