It's not how much you know it's how fast you can learn.

It's not what you know it's how fast you can learn. Or I'll take someone who has very little experience who has a strong aptitude over someone experienced with an average aptitude. I keep hearing this and I wanted to bring it up for the forum to analyze. I can see both sides loud and clear. This was brought up once again at my current position. Does it have weight? According to several developers/DBA's they think this way.

I honestly thought just enough about it to post it. I'll come back later with my opinion I honestly don't know if I have one yet.

Find more posts tagged with

Save $250 on 2025 certification boot camps from Infosec!

Book now with code EOY2025

Button

Comments

Akaricloud

For almost every position I've been in this has been the case and is often how I sell myself in interviews. I'd much rather work with someone with a good personality that can be up to speed in a couple months than someone that has the knowledge necessary but will never grow with the position.

There will always be a certain level of base knowledge necessary but realistically with some of the unique, complex systems out there this is often the best choice when hiring.

antielvis

@N2IT

I agree with you. What industry wouldn't hire someone with passion & desire? If they don't, you need to ask what type of working environment it is. Many of my friends are in IT and I see it with them. There are those who "live it, love it" and those who collect a paycheque. The "live it, love it" guys have careers which have grown faster over the years. I know one guy who is in year 9 of his career. He's still in desktop. He wants more server duties but when I recommend that he study he has "other commitments" all of them being social activities and isn't interested. It's affecting his career too as I tried to help him get in a pretty much "sure fire" job. His lengthy time in a junior position turned off the HR department and they told me outright it was assumed he was unmotivated.

N2IT

This is just what I have heard throughout my career but mainly in this position. It comes up a lot, I'm not sure why but we are close to each other so a lot of conversations are overheard. This comes from career IT professionals 20+ years and they are fully functional and then some. I just wanted to hear what the forum thought about this. I still don't have an opinion and that is rare for me lol.

fredrikjj

Sometimes it's about how much you know because the problem needs to be solved now, and not three months later when you've digested a couple of books on the topics.

networker050184

I think you have to find the middle ground. I want someone that can learn fast and pick things up, but I'm also not looking to have to start someone from scratch either. I know some good engineers that are a bit slow on the uptake but once they have it down they are set. I also know some that can pick things up very quick but you ask them about it a week later and they have already lost it.

Dieg0M

N2IT wrote: »

I'll take someone who has very little experience who has a strong aptitude over someone experienced with an average aptitude.

It's the same for me. I value potential for growth higher than current knowledge. If you put someone with same potential for growth but has more current knowledge, I will obviously choose that person to be a member of my team. Also, one of the hardest things is to evaluate someones potential. You have to really know the person because as some have stated, some people learn really fast but also forget really fast.

N2IT

@ Fred I think when they say someone with quick aptitude they mean someone who can figure that problem out in a few days not a few weeks, but it's subjective so come up with any examples you want. I don't have a preference at this point I just find it fascinating the dynamics that can be leveraged.

rowelld

I agree mostly with that phrase. Someone with the passion and drive is going to be great to work with. Thus the potential in learning increases dramatically.

I don't know if it has to do with folks around my age (I'm 27) but some want to have it all without doing the actual work. Several of my peers always ask how to get there and when I tell them step-by-step they just glaze.

paul78

Fascinating topic... I had never actually heard that saying before...

I'll probably need to ponder on it more. I assume the context pertains to an individual's worth to an employer. My initial reaction was that it was neither about how fast someone learned or how much knowledge someone has acquired. I would expect that it is more about an individual's ability to apply new learnings or existing knowledge to a business goal or requirement.

If I was to twist the original statement - I would prefer - "It's not about what you learn or know but about how you apply it."

--chris--

networker050184 wrote: »

I think you have to find the middle ground. I want someone that can learn fast and pick things up, but I'm also not looking to have to start someone from scratch either..

This has been my experience. I've had two interviews where the guy on the other side of the table has said something like, "I like you and I like that you are motivated. I could mold you around what I need done, etc....but I need someone with just a little more skill/experience".

Most places I have met people from would take a "rising star" over someone that's content with average.

paul78

That largely depends on the business. It may be sometimes risky to have too many "rising stars" on a team. Retention can then become a challenge and high turnover can be disruptive.

About7Narwhal

This isn't strictly a true or false as the answer (in my mind) depends on the situation. I have gotten jobs because I told them I could learn fast; I have missed jobs because I did not already know the material. A light understanding with a high aptitude might be a good striking point between both.

"I have theoretical knowledge and I cannot wait to utilize it on a live system." or something along those lines.

networker050184

About7Narwhal wrote: »

"I have theoretical knowledge and I cannot wait to utilize it on a live system."

Sounds dangerous to me!

DevilWAH

For a network Admin with technology contently changing then I agree some one who can learn new things quickly has a big advantage. However I am not going to employ a fresh out of collage CCNA student with no real world experience to manage a large network, or as a senior consultant. You need to have experience and a lot of knowledge as well as the ability and drive to learn. No matter how quickly you can learn in front of a customer they want answers then and there, you can ask them to wait while your engineers go away to learn it.

Of course the best person to have is the people who not only can understand new technologies quickly, but also remember the detail of the old ones and so have a huge volume of knowledge they can recall and apply to new situations. These people we call Guru's and look down upon us mortals, in fact we are often the end users of there designs and development.

I agree with networker there has to be a balance, either extreme is not a very useful person, some knowledge is a must as is the ability to be flexible and move with the times. But there was a very interesting book called "the mythical man month", in which it does point out that a flexible and driven person will be up to 10X more productive than some one who just comes in and goes through the motions at work, even if they have full understanding of what they are doing (its mainly discussing around programmers).

I generally look for people that have 80%+ of the knowledge required for the role, and have demonstrated in previous jobs that they are willing to put the effort in to learn the rest of there own back. Demonstrating they apply them selves and have been successful in moving them selves along in there carer and a clear desire to continue improving, are both important points when it comes to making a choice on who to employ.

N2IT

I think the type of environment plays a huge role as well. A fully mature organization might rather have the knowledge since change doesn't happen as often as a research and development team who is consistently flying around with designs of proofs of concepts. I work in an R&D environment, very Agile and the ability to pickup new concepts/technologies is critical. Knowledge is important as well though. The environment dictates what is more important. JMHO

the_Grinch

networker - I definitely fall into that "learn quickly, forget a week later" category. Though, it's usually because a large portion of what I have done has been the "get it up and someone else will take it over".

I agree it totally depends on the environment that you work in. If you need engineers that are JOATs then you really do want someone who can learn quickly because everyday will be different. But in the event that you are building something from the ground up you want that guy who lives and breathes only that. There are a number of things to consider depending on the position and the depth. Personally, I feel a lot of companies post for JOATs then get mad when things don't work exactly right. When the issue at hand is you need that specialist because depth is the important part.

In EMS (and law enforcement) you see this debate a lot. One side will say an EMT should go straight to Paramedic once they are certified. You won't pick up bad habits and you know the right way to do everything. On the other side, some experience Paramedics will tell you that if you don't do two years as an EMT you don't know what sick looks like. In law enforcement, some people go in from the military and think that they know it all. Some instructors prefer it, others would rather have the guy who never picked up a firearm in their life. Truth is in either case the situation dictates what is needed and what is best. There isn't a right answer and everyone has an opinion.

SephStorm

DevilWAH wrote: »

For a network Admin with technology contently changing then I agree some one who can learn new things quickly has a big advantage. However I am not going to employ a fresh out of collage CCNA student with no real world experience to manage a large network, or as a senior consultant. You need to have experience and a lot of knowledge as well as the ability and drive to learn. No matter how quickly you can learn in front of a customer they want answers then and there, you can ask them to wait while your engineers go away to learn it.

Which is why you have senior engineers on the staff. You don't hire him to manage the network, you hire him to join the team that manages the network. My .02.

EDIT: I also agree with what The Grinch says, 100%, well, maybe 98%. A Lot of positions claim they need JOAT, because that is what they WANT. They want that perfect canidate, but that isn't a need. So they eliminate people who would be good for the position they have and the position takes longer to fill, people stay unemployed, and more people are on governmental assistance.

W Stewart

The difference is that a less experienced guy with motivation will eventually get that experience and as long as he keeps his passion for technology and continues learning, then it's only a matter of time before he becomes a guru. If you're just collecting a paycheck then you need to find what you really want out of life and try to be excellent at it.

About7Narwhal

networker050184 wrote: »

Sounds dangerous to me!

These fiber cabled weren't important... right?

DevilWAH

SephStorm wrote: »

Which is why you have senior engineers on the staff. You don't hire him to manage the network, you hire him to join the team that manages the network. My .02.

Sorry this is what I meant, at different stages of career and for different job roles you look for a different balance. Junior engineers you lean towards people who will learn quickly more than their raw knowledge and experience. But if your looking for a senior engineer you look for some one who does have a lot of knowledge and experience. Most important is that the person hiring understands the scope of the role that needs to be carried out and can pick the person with the right set of skills for it. The more knowledge, learning ability and experience a person has, the more job roles and the more senior roles they are going to be suitable for.

I am not sure either how you learn to be a quick learner? I would say for more people it is something the comes naturally, they have an inquisitive mind and like to find out things off there own back.

N2IT

Quick learner is a lot of natural ability. The biggest factor in that is who your mother and father are. We have a 23 year old actuarial graduate who had 2 years SAS experience and is now one of our brightest and best developers in SQL and is now moving onto CSS and C#. She is fantastic, her studies and development are only done in the hours of operations. I even point blank asked her and she told me she is too young to spend evenings and weekends studying, however she is going back to get her masters in statistics.

LarryDaMan

The ability to learn quickly coupled with intellectual curiosity and Google-Fu skills are so important. But, unless we're talking strictly about entry level positions, I don't value those things above skills and experience. Notwithstanding entry-level positions, the expectation is that you can pretty much contribute right away without too much hand holding.

N2IT

I fall in the middle somewhere, not slow to learn but not a dynamo either. I find myself retaining a lot of information once I learn it so maybe I am more the once I learn it type and I always have it. I agree experience is huge IMO, it can be leveraged in other environments which can be extremely helpful. I believe in a hybrid of both personally, but I do find it fascinating when a young professional just surpasses everyone's expectations.