Disclaimer: I am by no means saying that college dropouts or students with poor grades are dumb -- I'm simply defending the hiring practices of Google and why their practices hold rational meaning to them.

There are so many little things about a prospective employee that can tell you, as the entrepreneur or hiring manager, whether or not the candidate is capable of being a reliable, long term, team player. For example, if I'm hiring a person, I'm going to look at how many schools this person went to and whether or not s/he graduated. I'm going to look at his/her smoking habits. I'm going to look at how long this person remained at his or her last few jobs. If I'm hiring manager for a company like Google, which receives thousands of resumes daily, I'll quickly eliminate people who didn't get a college degree, who smoke on a daily basis, and who weren't able to keep a job for more than two years because each show a lack of commitment and/or a preference for short term over long term goals. There are so many brilliant people who don’t have college degrees, but it takes much longer to screen these people for commitment. I don't think companies like Google care about what you learned in college so much as they care about your desire to stay with a company for more than a few months. They want employees who are able to work on projects that they aren't necessarily in love with.

Many people critique Google for looking at college transcripts, but I'm going to defend them on this for several reasons:

1) High GPAs show the ability to do everything (besides business/computer science), and this is often a good measure for what happens in the workplace. This isn't to say that dropouts are unable to prosper at a company like Google, but it's an easier way to weed out the definite slackers.

2) A transcript allows Google to see what kind of courses you took. Did you only take computer science classes? Did you stick with your Jazz Ensemble for all four years, or did you join in and out depending on the semester? Are there any independent studies? All of these gives clues as to who the person is and what their commitment to their studies are. Maybe you took a class in philosophy which you had absolutely no interest in whatsoever, but were you able to get at least a B?

3) I hate to say it, but looking at college transcripts is an easy way to weed people out. If you're running an amazing company, you'll get thousands upon thousands of transcripts, and you can't possibly take everyone. By weeding out college dropouts and those with poor grades, it's much easier to focus on those who are likely to succeed in a large company.

As Seth Godin often says on his blog that resumes give a reason for companies to reject you, which is exactly why Google asks for them in the first place. It makes the hiring process much better for them! For those of you who don't have a college degree or resume, find people to hire you based on something you did. Through keeping this blog, I've received many recruitment emails from technology companies. Although I'm yet to receive my college diploma, I'd feel reluctant to hire someone without a college diploma unless s/he has solid work experience to compensate. Even a college diploma is no longer enough to hire somebody. I'll take this even further to say, if I receive an offer to work for a company without an interview and review of my past experiences, I would feel reluctant to join because it shows something about how smart my colleagues in this company may be.

The moral of this story: If you think rationally about it, Google has a reason to recruit people in the way that they do. Fewer people leave the company not just because they offer amazing job benefits, but because they attract people who are more likely to stick it out and see the good in whatever they're working on. Most of the people I know at Yahoo are high school or college dropouts, and most of them are seriously contemplating leaving their job. While Yahoo is yet to better their job benefits, hiring committed people from the onset is often a significant part of the battle.

Jessica Mah is a 17 year old entrepreneur, blogger, and sophomore at early college, Bard College at Simon's Rock.

She loves chatting with fellow students, readers, and entrepreneurs, so don't hesitate to email her or message her on AIM! Feel free to subscribe to her blog or stalk her twitter.

Isn't it frustrating when you do something "wrong" and a random person tells you that you can't do it because it's against the company/school/organization's rules? This can be in reference to virtually anything -- a hotel employee or restaurant waitress tells you that you're not allowed to do something because it's against company policy. The issue being that this so called employee has no clue why the rules exist in the first place! If your company has rules in place, make sure that employees know why they exist. Make sure your employees can offer good explanations for why they exist and reasonable alternatives around them. Real life example:

1) As I write this blog post, I'm in Boston. As I was checking into my hotel, I noticed a hotel customer and hotel employee arguing over something. The hotel customer was clearly a tourist and had brought in a cooler box, when the employee stopped him. Apparently, cooler boxes weren't allowed into the hotel. What? Why? Of course, the hotel employee didn't know why. He responded by saying, "it's just against hotel policy." Now why isn't this explanation good enough? Because the customer gets even MORE aggravated. He's thinking what to do with this cooler box he just bought. What does he do with the many drinks inside? The proper response would be for the hotel employee to say something among the lines of, "You can’t bring the cooler box inside because it's against state law, but I'd be happy to hold onto your cooler box until the end of your stay." Except how many employees are trained to do this?

2) Or another example I've dealt with throughout my childhood: Teachers asserting authority by punishing kids for rules that haven't a reason to exist: I was sitting on my friend's lap when a random school aid told me not to. I got off her lap and asked the school aid why I wasn't allowed to sit on her lap. Of course, being that I'm Jessica Mah, I get accused of being an arrogant teenage brat because I'm curious enough to ask about the reasons for rules existing. Next thing I knew, I was being threatened detention and a trip to the principals office. Had it ever occurred to the school aid that it was a stupid rule that should be changed? Probably not -- it makes them feel good about themselves to assert their authority over me. In an ideal world, the school aid would tell me why I can't sit on the persons lap. If the school aid doesn't have an answer, she would tell the school principal that the rule was meaningless, and that it be removed.

The bottom line: If your customer does something that's "against the rules," be prepared to give them a good reason as to why the rules exist, and promptly propose a suitable alternative. If no alternative exists, make one, even if it isn't your fault. If my flight from New York to San Francisco is delayed, I don't care that your plane broke down and I don't care what your reimbursement policies are. I want a suitable alternative or reimbursement. Make sure your employees know precisely how to react in these "unique" situations, and what they are authorized to offer as alternatives. Better yet, tell your employees that they can do whatever they would like in order to please the customer. If customer service is your number one priority and you give employees full authorization to do whatever they want to meet that mantra, your customers will be satisfied even when they can't do something or if you're not allowed to let them do something. I promise!

Jessica Mah is a 17 year old entrepreneur, blogger, and sophomore at early collegeBard College at Simon's Rock.

She loves chatting with fellow students, readers, and entrepreneurs, so don't hesitate to email her or message her on AIM! Feel free to subscribe to her blog or stalk her twitter.

Wow. Once again, I'm disappointed with Ask. They're still spending millions of dollars on these stupid advertisements! I'll give them some credit because their decent ads that show some benefits Ask has over others, but in reference to my post about Super Bowl ads, why do they waste money on this?

Ask is an internet company, yet they choose to advertise via billboard and TV. People aren't likely to change their normal way of doing things just because they saw this advertisement. And even if they did, how is Ask supposed to measure the success, demographics, etc... of the visitors coming from these ads? They can't.

Everybody says that Ask's goal in advertising is to bring traffic to their site. I've spoken to a few Ask employees about this, and they claim that the ads are actually meant to build up brand value. Traffic isn't their first priority. My personal concern - they've been running these ads forever! When will they actually get something accomplished? A 4-5% profit decrease per year doesn't justify the millions spent on this form of marketing.

My personal take? Build a product that doesn't directly compete with Google. It doesn't matter if your algorithm or website is better or easier because Google already has recognition as being the market leader. Find a specific audience to target and a new niche/market to go after. It doesn't matter that bloggers like me are writing them up if they can't manage to convert it to dollars and cents.

For your entertainment, here's an advertisement:

In response to a comment #9 on TechCrunch, I agree - The money spent on advertising could have been spent on database storage or pay for research/development in a better product.

Jessica Mah is a 17 year old entrepreneur, blogger, and sophomore in college. She's currently the founder of a startup, managing editor at Startupism.com, SimonsRockers.com, and Jessicamah.com.