Virgin Australia CEO John Borghetti gave a great talk at Brisbane’s Customs House today to UQ business, economics and law alumni on the company’s recent re-branding, which is aimed at capturing a large chunk of the high margin business and government travel market. During the Q&A session, he observed frankly that he doesn’t pay much attention to what is written on people’s CVs or their qualifications, and he instead prefers to get a sense of a person’s ability, character and drive from a face-to-face interview.
Earlier today, the National Centre for Vocational Education and Research (NCVER) released a fascinating new paper (Which paths work for which young people?) which found:
…although the university path is best for females, the picture is far less clear for males. It is still the best path in terms of leading to a high-status occupation, but an apprenticeship after completing Year 12 offers the best pay at age 25 years, and paths involving apprenticeships or traineeships lead to greater levels of satisfaction with life than does university study.
While I’d never discount the value of a university education, clearly it is not essential for success in life, and it may not be the best option for many young people.
Queensland Economy Watch 
Interesting – given that unstructured intervirews have consistently been shown to be one of the least reliable predictors of job performance – in some studies barely rating above handwriting analysis. I suspect he left out that someone has already vetted job applicants or they have a strong work history (the best predictor, along with IQ) before he meets them.
Interesting to know the last time he reviewed an unveiled list.
I was going to say almost the same thing as Gavin. The consensus of research as far as I am aware is that the opinion expressed by the Virgin boss of his own confidence in personal assessment is a self-delusion?
I think the classic study here was the US baseball team that ignored all talent scouts and recruited entirely on quantitative stats and consistently outperformed. Additionally, I believe there was some more recent mathematical research that a random process of promotion to management was superior to qualitative selection?