How Important Is Related Experience in Doing a Job?

Having prior experience when doing a job can be helpful when dealing with careers that require background knowledge, such as a science and medicine careers, like a biologist or a surgeon. Other fields like advertising or business do not necessarily require experience because it can be taught. However, being a national leader of the free world is not an easy job, and it is important to be knowledgeable in the way the government is set up and the way politics works.

In certain professions, I think that a lack of experience can actually be helpful to some positions. For example, if a business has been running the same way for years and is starting to decline, I think that bringing in a new employee who has little experience with the workings and systems of the company can be quite helpful. A new perspective can bring ideas and innovation to the table that would never have come from within a company that had been operating the same way for years. However, while this method of new and inexperienced workers fostering progress and development may work in certain areas of the private sector, I think that it has no place in government. Our government system is incredibly complex, a collection of policies and compromises that have developed through the entire history of our country’s existence. Coming into a business and making decisions on how to operate one company is vastly different than trying to work with others to improve upon the policies that affect the welfare of an entire nation. I think that in government, the people who are working to create and enforce laws should have some experience with this system and method of work before coming into power. Otherwise, they may not have developed the skills and understanding of our complex government necessary to compromise and make change effectively.

I am generally opposed to celebrities running for political office. This assumes that they are running primarily because they are celebrities. If this is the case, the individual in question is likely full of him/herself and seeking yet another means of validating his/her own fame. Often, such candidates value winning for the sake of winning. Donald Trump ran for president only because he couldn't run for king. That is not to say that lifelong politicians always value the interests of their constituents above all else, but celebrities are significantly less likely to exhibit that level of devotion. Christine Quinn was right on the money: having the qualities and strong opinions appropriate for a profession does not make a person qualified. In spite of all of this, people vote for celebrities because they are not satisfied. They have become disillusioned with the repetition of campaigns and elections without appreciable change. All they know is that the status quo sucks. They don't want what's best; they want what's different--no matter how unqualified or racist or orange. Experience is vital for almost any job. I must admit to a degree of bias: I value my education very highly and, without it, I doubt that I would care to live. It's also worth noting that Frank Bruni is subject to a similar bias. Not to assume too much, but as a relatively accomplished journalist, he would likely be upset if some guy who wandered in off the street were offered a comparable position.

As with all professions, there's a fine line between surgery and politics. Both require different amounts of studying and facilitate varying methodical approaches into conducting the job. I don't believe that a candidate must be a seasoned politician in order to lead the country effectively. However, I do believe that a candidate must have a detailed background behind political commentary and involvement with politics in general (Note: This doesn't mean you have to ACTUALLY be a politician). For the most part, the overlying problem with career-politicians is that there is a renowned corruptive stigma associated amongst them. If you ask many people why they may have voted against Hillary in the General Election, they will most likely cite the 'Benghazi incident' or the 'Private E-mails' scandal as a major turning point into why she lost certain states. Most people, including myself, do not trust politicians one bit at all; They're frankly notorious for only benefiting themselves and taking money from shady organizations (such as the Saudi backing of millions of dollars into the Clinton campaign). A pilot 'with 999 flights under their belt' as the author states, is far different than a politician with numerous years of scandal under their name. When a populistic, charismatic candidate rises up from the primary, it's frankly a new hope for the middle sector of America. Time after time, the middle class has been failed by politicians, prompting us to look towards a fresh option.

To me, it seems perfectly reasonable that prior experience should be expected when one attempts to run for a major government position. I can see why voters may flock to these candidates. Candidates without experience feel refreshing. And with politics, there isn’t a clear answer. With surgery, lives are on the line. One mistake could lead to death. With teaching, standardized tests are used to gauge a teacher’s performance. But with positions like Governor and President, the terrain is murky. Many times it will take years before all the consequences from a President’s decision are revealed. These isn’t some standardized test to see how the President is doing. This doesn’t mean that limited experience cannot be useful. At times, it means one isn’t sucked into the status quo. Take Renaissance Technologies, for example. This hedge fund has generated spectacular returns in its existence, greatly outperforming the market. RenTec prefers to hire candidates with backgrounds in Math and CS and Wall Street experience is frowned upon. Why would one of the best hedge funds reject Wall Street? Wall Street has a herd mentality. Rather than take risks to make clients more money, most managers follow what others do. But, RenTec is different. They reject the herd mentality and stick to their own judgement. Personally, I don’t see myself voting for Cynthia Nixon. While I can appreciate the refreshing aspect of her candidacy, her lack of political experience is a deal breaker for me.

I clicked on this question because I feel as though it is a necessary topic of conversation. I first chose it thinking that “some related experience is good in a job, but anyone can start at a new place of business.” I thought that this would allow for new perspective having a person with limited experience on a topic could be useful. I thought that in entry-level jobs it would be a good idea, or if this was for a team job/ innovative working experience. Then, I went on to further read into from where the question was coming from. Then I saw the other side. I went to start questioning myself. I thought about what the article mentioned and how I would rather want a more experienced surgeon or pilot in putting my life in those hands, so why would I put my hands in a celebrity turned politician? I don’t think that I would stop myself from electing a celebrity, but it would depend on who. I think that today more and more celebrities start to put their spotlight on important topics for discussions. More have become political not just in who they vote for, but stand up and really get involved in different conflicts in order to better the world. Some people are willing to elect anyone not in the political world though because they are done with the corruption and looking for something new. Also, people watch tv shows and more and find a character that they relate to, fall in love with, and can’t stop watching them. This allows for the person to relate and see their name and vote.

Politics is an extraordinarily confusing field of knowledge, as confusing or more confusing than any other field. In order to be a good politician you have to understand economics, finance, international relations, education, healthcare, the military, rhetoric, law and countless other areas. So, in my opinion it is absurd to elect people who don't have extensive experience in the field of politics. I think that in order to be a great president, one should have been a governor, when they can master domestic policy, and a senator, when they can master foreign policy. However, the tis not to say we should always elect the most experienced candidate. If the candidate has been in other offices for a long time and has little to show for it, that is equally bad as someone with little experience. Cynthia Nixon and Donald Trump are both extraordinarily under qualified to have such important jobs in politics, and the issue of experience is far from a a partisan one as the article suggests.

I strongly agree with the conclusion made in the article. Having experience in a certain field and gaining influence in that it does not qualify a person as a good candidate for the job. I feel like politics is different from many occupations because of it having such an unseen effect. What I mean by this is that in a hospital, for example, the effectiveness of a doctor's work can be directly seen through the patients while in politics people don't often see direct results so they say things that demeans the works of politicians simply because they are not seeing direct outcomes. I feel like this situation is present in this article. No celebrity would claim that they would go into the medical field with no experience because they understand the procedure but the importance and complexity of politics are often overlooked. This is the reason that I believe that celebrities think that it would be easy to transition into politics and I think that is quite a childish view.

TIME WAS WHEN Employers sought talented employees whom they intended to provide with on-the-job training. But that model has been replaced by eliminating the requirement in corporate charters that the articles of incorporation detail how the formation of the corporation will improve services and goods to the surrounding communities where it engages in business. So it is the responsibility of perspective employees to provide themselves with job training. There are great free resources on the Internet. Courses that can lead to certificates that prepare job seekers with a specific set of technical school. Future plans are for everyone in the US to be eligible for free Junior College degrees and/or free advanced technical training. Of course that will require the building of a great educational system. The destructive power of privatization must be reversed. Otherwise such monstrosities as the late Trump "university" will be foisted on the unsuspecting consumer.

I really don't think that Cynthia Nixon should be running for governor, and I also don't think that Oprah should run for president. Both of these thoughts are based on the fact that neither of these women have political experience. I think that any job in politics, or any profession in general, should require proper skills, credentials, and expertise. In the article, Christine Quinn states,"The years I might have spent developing skills in that area, I spent developing other skills". I agree with her statement because people train and go to college in order to develop the skills they need for their profession, and I simply do not think that an actress, or celebrity, has the skill sets or knowledge required for political office. What would be the point of college and majors if you could simply get a job without the proper requirements. Like the article states, I do not want surgery from a doctor who has new and inventive ideas, I do not want a teacher who has not ever taught before, and I certainly do not want the political power of this country put into the hands of people who don't have a clue of what it means to be in politics.

I believe Cynthia Nixon should not be running for political office. On the topic of whether or not celebrities in general should be running for office, I think unless they’ve had time in a position that helps them gain experience in the field, they should remain out of it. Christine Quinn states, “The years I might have spent developing skills in that area, I spent developing other skills,” which proves that someone like Nixon, who has always focused solely on skills for acting, which if I’m not mistaken has nothing to do with political office, shouldn’t be running. To give a good example, Ronald Reagan was also a famous actor who became the US President. Before running for office, he was a union leader as well as governor of California. He gained enough experience needed for such a role and in turn was an amazing leader of our country. Christine Quinn also stated that “Nixon’s accomplishments as an actress and dedication as an activist aren’t adequate credentials.” I 100% agree. Just because there is passion for what you believe in doesn’t mean you have the tools needed to govern a City. I do believe there are some jobs where inexperience is fine in order to get the job done. For simpler jobs such as dog sitting, or working at a restaurant, I wouldn’t be too upset if there wasn’t loads of experience under the worker’s belt. However, in professions in the medical field or in this case, running for office, lots of experience is needed before taking on such responsibilities.

Unlike jobs in the medical field, for example surgeons, who would end up killing as they go without necessary expertise- political jobs are very different from other occupations in the sense that you can learn (as well as make mistakes) as you go. It’s not ideal and a lot of my opinions on this are situational, but I’m alright with celebrities running for political office. In the state of North Carolina the restrictions for running for governor are hardly restrictions: you must be at least 30 years old, a citizen of the US for at least 5 years, and a resident of North Carolina for at least 2 years. In the case of Cynthia Nixon, New York follows similar guidelines give or take a few details. I agree with the article’s powerful closing statement, “Liberals complain a lot these days about how little regard many conservatives have for expertise...rigorous training and painstakingly earned knowledge matter. They’re not badges of elitism. They’re proof of seriousness”, yet I find myself questioning restrictions on the eligibility for political candidacy. If a large group of people have a problem with others supporting inexperienced politicians then wouldn’t/shouldn’t there be tighter, experienced-based, restrictions on becoming a politician, like the governor?

I think that celebrities running for political office in general is ridiculous. I think people are willing to support politicians who don't have political experience because they don't understand the absurdity in that. I think experience for any job is the number one most important thing because you need to know what you are doing in order to pull your load. Jobs in which experience is extremely important would be a doctor and dentist. Jobs in which it is not very important at all would be dog-sitting or a grocery cashier. The job of governor falls along the very important side on the continuum because working for the government is a job you need to know how to do. No, I do not think that having limited experience in an area can ever be useful for doing a job, because you can't get a job done perfectly. I would not vote for Nixon for governor if I could because she is an actress not a governor.

I think that experience is a major game changer when it comes to job selection. Although , I think that many people vote/support celebrities and/or social media influencers because they are taking a new and modern approach to politics and represent the new generation of people that are starting to get around the age to be able to vote . I think experience in a job can be important in many fields . Back in the article, for example, when the author talks about how you wouldn’t want an inexperienced physician or pilot on the job. But if you’re just working at a McDonald’s , or waiting tables, I don’t think you necessarily need experience for that. You could be a great waitress because you’re a great socialized, rather than being a pro at picking up dishes and transferring them to the kitchen. I think that in professions that have serious training you never should worry about having someone on the job that’s doing an important deed with a small amount of experience . It normally doesn’t happen .

In general, unless a celebrity has a law degree and has spent time in a leadership position, aside from their celebrity career, then I do not believe that they should run for political office. I think that celebrities do have influence over their country's population, but they should not take advantage of it in a field that they are unfamiliar with. There are jobs where experience is not that important because one gains experience as he or she works. For example, being a cashier does not require a person to have cashier experience. Instead, an employee teaches a trainee what to do, and the trainee can then become the employee and the trainer, and the cycle continues. In this particular case, an employee with limited experience may be useful to the employers because lack of experience allows them to mold their employees to work exactly as they please. However, with a job such as the governor, one cannot be "trained." The training to hold a leadership position such as governor is holding other smaller leadership positions in the field of law, for example, being an attorney and owning the firm. Personally, I do not know whether or not I would vote for Cynthia Nixon for governor because I do not know enough about her, but from Bruni's op-ed, it seems that Nixon may be inexperienced, and for that reason alone, I probably would not vote for her.

I think that celebrities running for political office takes away from the United States prestigious image, especially in cases where the candidate has little to no knowledge in regard to politics. On the other hand, in many cases, the reason why people are willing to support these candidates is because of the fact that they don't have much political experience. Often these candidates can provide a fresh new approach towards issues in society.

One of the most important aspects of starting a new job in a different field, is to have experience. However, the amount of experience needed for certain jobs varies drastically. Let’s take engineers as an example. If a person entering this field has too much experience, they’ll tend to overuse an idea that works best. This can be both terrific and detrimental. Reusing an idea guarantees success for them, and who wouldn’t want a successful career? On the other hand, it leads to customer dissatisfaction and hardships, because it’ll take a lot more effort to come up with a new idea. However, the requirement and length of experience for a doctor is much greater. As stated in the article, we would prefer a doctor that has had many surgeries over a doctor that has only had a few. Government jobs would fall in between the two sides of the spectrum. In this type of job, both stability and creativity are highly needed. Stability prevents drastic changes to our daily life, and creativity can be used to slightly alter existing laws. Cynthia Nixon and many other celebrities are hoping to enter a political field of work, but they don’t have much political experience. Since i’m not familiar with their political views,I would not vote for them. Also their lack of experience frightens me because it can lead to fast changes (Quick changes in government is never a good thing).

I believe job experience is important depending on what the job is. for instance, if the job is being the president of the United States, then I believe having some political experience may come in handy. Making business deals and leading a country are two completely different skills. What I don't understand is why doesn't the Presidency have political requirements? In order to run for president, one needs to be 35 years of age, "be in the U.S for 14 years," and they must be born in America. These requirements don't represent the needed attributes a president should have, these requirements are met by most middle-aged American citizens! The requirements needed to become president should reflect upon what makes a leader, not just a citizen. Pop stars, celebrities, actors, etc. have no place in leading an entire country, except maybe in a movie.

Celebrities who choose to run for a position in political office usually have little to no experience. Regardless of this, they have the right to enter whatever career choice they want, no matter their level of experience. People who support politicians with no political experience probably choose to support them because of their status in society. For example, Donald Trump had no political experience but ran for Presidency, and won. His supporters agreed with what he said because he found ways to sound like he could relate to his audience. He is successful, economically so that gave him a sense of authority compared to his supporters. Experience for any job, however, is important because to qualify, you should know what you're doing or at least have an idea. Jobs in medicine and jobs involved in life-or-death, or decision-making situations should require some experience unlike jobs in the food industry or sales when you can learn everything you need to know in a matter of two or three shifts. The job of a governor should require some experience to be successful but that's not saying prior knowledge of what the job entails isn't useful. Having limited experience in an area will not particularly benefit a person when applying or, in this case, running for a job because of the background knowledge needed to succeed. If I could vote for Cynthia Nixon, I don't think I would because the article described her as unqualified and incompetent for the job of a governor.

When it comes to celebrities in political office, I feel it wouldn't be the best idea. We don't know their actual view on things we just see the way they act around their fans and on TV so we don't really get to see the things they do off camera or how they act around people they know really well. There are several things that could go wrong in politics such as the way people are being treated and the way people are reacting to things. They might not know the best way to fix the issue and in the end it could end up making the problem even worse. I feel it would be okay for some people but then again I also feel we need to have someone with experience in charge of how the country is run. I feel some people are willing to support people who don't have political experience because it would be interesting to see how someone else who doesn't know as much handles different problems that could occur. Such as, people are set on how bad school shootings are this year and what our president has done to fix it. "We should have a law on guns..." someone at my school said. It would be interesting to see how someone else with a different point of view would handle problems like this and how they would try to fix the problem.

Experience with countless jobs can be a deal maker and a deal breaker; I would, without a doubt, want an experienced surgeon, or a pilot. But politics falls into a gray area. Experience with politics can be both a bad thing and a good thing. Experience can show that you know exactly what you’re doing and that you’re more than qualified for a position. But it can also show that you’re a corrupted candidate- you know exactly what goes on and you’re willing to look past it. Experienced politicians will most likely know what ideas will hold up in reality, and what won’t. But inexperienced people will bring in fresh new ideas and change to better our country further- and in the case of Trump, he was definitely different from previous candidates. We shouldn’t dwell on politicians previous occupations when we consider them for office. We should be analyzing their plans and policies- because when it comes down to it, we need someone with realistic and good ideas, regardless of their previous jobs.

Having past experience prior to starting a career can be necessary depending on the field. For many cases, companies require applicants to have had practiced their job in a less serious scenario to establish a “feel” for what the job is like, or simply just some past knowledge to ensure they have chosen the best candidate,(ex. how doctors have to go through internships, or how before hiring a manager the interviewee asks about past companies they managed). On the other hand some jobs don’t look specifically for past experience but instead a good character and personality that appears to handle the job. Personally, I think that political, and medical/science-related job should require some past experience because if people are just hired/elected without already practicing their job how can they be trusted to make the correct or executive decision? Therefore, with some jobs that require past experience in order to be hired, how can people build their experience for the first time if no one ever hires them? A way to avoid having past experience can be to put people in a controlled environment to practice their career without harming others. Although I can see the importance behind past experience, everyone should have the ability to be trusted (unless otherwise evident that they shouldn't be) in order to build their career and experience to achieve a level of success.

Limited experience may be useful to bring in new perspectives in certain situations and jobs; however, in others, it could be detrimental. I believe that holding political office is a job that requires previous experience to be done well, especially since it's so important both in our country and globally. Political leaders, such as governors, directly and indirectly, affect thousands of people a day through laws and bills they sign, and inexperience could have disastrous consequences. Though I don't know much about the other candidates in the New York gubernatorial race, I would not vote for Cynthia Nixon because she has not given any definitive statements on what her views are and why she would be a good candidate for governor. Limited experience in a job might be useful when looking for a new perspective, however. In my life, sometimes I get stuck on a problem in math because I think I have to do it a certain way, but my younger sister comes up with another way to do it. I imagine it's the same in specific jobs that rely on opinions and finding creative solutions to problems.

Celebrities running for political office is not a bad thing. They are still people and American citizens and they should have the same rights as everyone else. Celebrities also have large fan bases and it would be good to use those for that kind of purpose. People are willing to support politicians without experience because of the actions they say they will take for the country. Honestly, the experience depends on the job because anyone could pick up on a job quickly. I agree that some things take practice and experience for the safety of others like surgeons but how are they supposed to learn if someone does not give them the chance? Experience would not be as important in marketing or in janitor jobs or even teaching because they would get used to it easily but experience is important when dealing with doctors and surgeons but also other important jobs like pilots because the lives of people are at stake. The job of a governor would need experience but not nearly as much as a doctor because they would need to have to know what to do but the thing is not many people are given the chance to be in politics. I think limited experience can be useful because it gives space to learn like my sister started working as a pharmacy technician and she did not know anything about working in a pharmacy she only knew the content she learned in school but she was able to pick up on it. I would vote for Cynthia because she cares about the people and she had a solid plan for New York.

When speaking about politics, I do believe that the person running should have an ample amount of experience. I often think that I would want someone somewhat experienced to be my president, I wouldn’t want some random celebrity to take up the most important job in the country. I feel like a lot of kids would like their favorite celebrities to be political leaders because we tend to have this preconceived idea of who these famous people are. We see how they act in front of cameras and we like it so we think they should be our president, in reality we have no idea if they are qualified for such an important job, we don’t know if we should trust them fully. It’s not just true with politics, I believe if you want to take a job you should have a little experience if any. If you want to work with kids, you should volunteer first in order to gain that experience. Otherwise, who would trust you with their child? If you want to work in retail, you should have a training period in order to gain experience. Without this experience, it’s very easy to mess up your job entirely. Though I’m sure that Cynthia Nixon is a lovely person, I’m always weary when it comes to shifts from actor/singer/etc to politician. I know many will disagree with me but I want my country to be the best it can be and I just don’t know if an actor in office will make we feel like we’re evolving.