For many years, a university degree was treated as an essential requirement for a wide range of jobs. Some employers have now dropped this requirement and assess candidates mainly on what they can do. I agree with this approach for most roles, although degrees remain necessary in certain professions.
The main argument in favour of skills-based hiring is that it allows employers to find the most capable person for the job. A degree shows that someone has completed a course of study, but it does not necessarily prove that they can perform specific tasks. A self-taught web developer who has built several successful websites may be far more productive than a graduate who has only studied the theory. By setting practical tests or reviewing a portfolio of work, employers can judge ability directly rather than relying on a qualification as an indirect signal.
This approach also widens opportunity. Many talented people do not attend university because of financial pressure, family responsibilities or poor advice at school. When a degree is a strict requirement, these people are excluded from well-paid careers regardless of their ability. Removing this barrier allows companies to recruit from a larger and more diverse pool of applicants, which can bring fresh perspectives into an organisation.
Nevertheless, degrees remain important in fields where errors could have serious consequences and where knowledge must be thorough and verified. Doctors, engineers and pharmacists, for instance, need a formal education that cannot easily be replaced by experience alone, and it would be irresponsible to hire them without it.
In conclusion, I believe that judging candidates by their skills and experience is fairer and more effective for the majority of jobs. However, in professions where public safety depends on specialist knowledge, a formal qualification should continue to be required.