vraiblonde said:
I disagree with that. You can be extremely qualified, in fact the most qualified candidate for a given job, but be passed over for a nitwit with the paperwork. That doesn't make you underqualified or a bad choice.
Actually it does. What you wrote doesn't make sense - one guy has the pedigree, the other doesn't. But the pedigree - which in other circles is known as "the qualifications" - doesn't make him "qualified" and the LACK of one, might actually be "qualified".
Whew. Does that make sense? Can you explain it to me?
If I'm hiring people for a job, I'd try to see if they have relevant work experience and or the academic credentials. Meyers had neither. Ginsburg - even if you think she's out to lunch - has them. Brown didn't have them either, and his resume when investigated was full of baloney.
It's one thing to pull for your side, but when your guy isn't qualified, you don't keep them in there out of - - - "loyalty". And you don't reward them for ---- "loyalty" --- either.