It is true that the world stomps the weak and hails the strong. This has been the case for ages - infinity. Same happens in every field - the weak are overshadowed by the strong. There is, however, a different definition to weak and strong here.

The weak is the one who does not have a degree, the strong is the one who has. The strong is heeded everywhere, the weak is bypassed. Now this does not matter that the strong is a 20-year old who has just graduated bearing a puzzled look on his face, and the weak is a 40-year old, clear in his mind about what he does.

Do they have any comparison? Yes they do. Comparing the degrees, the newbie would come on tops of the other. In terms of defining the concepts, the newbie would emerge on tops again. But - but - when you compare what really matters - how well their real world performance is - how well they apply themselves in real world - the newbie would be left to eat dust by the experience of the other.

Isn’t that what matters - real world performance? I am reasonably sure that that is what really matters. And I am also pretty much confident that no employer would intake an applicant who has excellent theoretical skills but he can not apply them to the real world. Yet again, I am eager to see an employer who would not prefer experience over the newbie.

Then why this bias of degree and non-degree? If a person suits your job, why not take him in? That’s the bias we need to clear if we want to see equality in the masses, if we want to see our people happy.

Anyone in the power corridor listenin’?