Screening candidates for upskilling

BryanNamba

In the latest version of our prize design, teams that qualify to participate in the prize competition would need to:

• Recruit and train at least 1,000 individuals in 100 days.
• Cut the training time in half compared to the currently established training time for their chosen profession.
• Place retrained workers in a job for at least 100 days.

Do you think competing teams should be able to screen out candidates for their programs based on parameters such as educational attainment and income?

NickOttens

@sternals, @Kstump, @MichaelEllison, what do you think?

sternals

If you want to make it a success then allow for screening to screen in higher income and higher skills. If want a true test take less skilled people and find them good jobs not able to be filled vacancies not displacing higher income and higher skill people.

This needs to be about addition and not substitution.

NickOttens

Thanks, @sternals!

@hcfirestine, @sinnodk, do you agree? What's your take on this?

HeatherSutton

sternals wrote: »

If want a true test take less skilled people and find them good jobs not able to be filled vacancies not displacing higher income and higher skill people. This needs to be about addition and not substitution.

I agree with you @sternals ! Very well said!

feskafi

I believe a basic level of screening should be allowed. Particularly, if you would like to make this a career for our trainees, we do need to make sure they can pass the basic requirements for the job before enrolling in a course.

For example, if our curriculum is to train for healthcare equipment technicians, I believe it's valid to check for:
1. Does the trainee have basic knowledge in English as they need to be able to read manuals?
2. Can the trainee lift 50 lbs as that's a requirement for the job?

I definitely do believe that the current income level shouldn't be taken into account.