I would employ whoever speaks better, more mature and has higher EQ.

But generally that means foreign degree holders who actually went overseas for a few years.

Not necessarily. Some people worked their asses off while studying to pay for their fees.

That's why I always ask interviewees how they funded their degrees. If they worked while studying, and still got good results and promotions - that says a whole lot about their ability and character. And though they are fresh graduates, they come with experience.

Of course it depends on the individual. But unless you know each and every prospective employee very well, hiring is a game of odds and probabilities.

And the odds are that a foreign trained graduate will turn out more adept at speaking out, independent thinking, initiative and unstructured problem solving - compared to his local counterpart. Especially if they come from a reputable foreign university. Locally, I'm afraid, there are no reputable institutions left.

This post has been edited by seantang: May 19 2008, 07:59 PM

Like someone said earlier, let's compare apples to apples. Try not to go off on a tangent and take a 'good' local vs a 'bad' foreign. Skewed comparisons work the other way as well.

If 2 candidates were absolutely identical in terms of their personal traits, just that one had a local degree and the other a foreign degree - then it's inevitable that the foreign degree holder has an advantage. It might be large or small, but it's an advantage nonetheless. And most times, when bosses can't make up their mind between 2 candidates' skills and personalities, the better recognised qualification will tip the scales. Easily justifiable within an objective assessment system.

This post has been edited by seantang: May 19 2008, 09:26 PM

What does that have to do with anything?

Equal Opportunity legislation deals with disability, ethnicity, religion, gender and age, mostly.

Education is not within the purview (unless you mean that a local degree is equivalent to a disability). There is no legislation in this world that says that employers must assess every bachelors or masters etc degree equally - regardless of which university or country issued it.

Where your school and university ranks amongst its peers, its medium of instruction, location and reputation forms a legitimate part of your overall profile, right next to your skills, personality etc. You can deny it all you want but that's god honest truth. Otherwise, we'd just list the name of the degree in our resumes. Why then, bother to specify the name of the Uni, which country it's in, the number of years spent there and that it wasn't a twinning, distance or local-foreign partner program done locally?

Ask any NUS, Tokyo U, Beijing U, HKU alumni in the past 5 years and you can see how their 'reputation' to their employers have been enhanced with their alma maters' climb up the rankings. It's an aura that envelopes them even if they are weak individually. The feeling is always "That's a good Uni. You got in and you came out in one piece with a degree. You must be doing something right".