31–40 of 93 posts
Is this right ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't understand the author's problem with "look good on paper" This is paper that the applicant has full control over. The applicant can put whatever they want on their resume and cover letter. Yes, up to and including blatant lies. If your company establishes a reputation of screening resumes based on certain features like university you encourage less moral applicants to fluff up their resumes. While these peo…
> Yes, up to and including blatant lies I wasn't suggesting that people lie on their resume or cover letter. > That puts anyone from a defense contractor, HFT firm, R&D group, and similar at a significant disadvantage. I was a defense contractor and experienced this first hand. I found that good communication skills both verbal and written were able to overcome this. Since the hypothetical non-technical recruiter in…
I think it's time that we consider that the problem might not be that we're hiring people based on the wrong things, but that the simple indicators of future success just might not exist. How long does this have to be an unsolved problem before people start to think, hey, maybe future success just isn't predictable, and certainly not if all you have is a resume and a couple hour interview. Maybe hire people with at l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, up to and including blatant lies I wasn't suggesting that people lie on their resume or cover letter. > That puts anyone from a defense contractor, HFT firm, R&D group, and similar at a significant disadvantage. I was a defense contractor and experienced this first hand. I found that good communication skills both verbal and written were able to overcome this. Since the hypothetical non-technical recruiter in…
> I wasn't suggesting that people lie on their resume or cover letter. I know, and I did not intend to suggest that. I'm just pointing out that people do, and it distorts resume pre-screening. > I was a defense contractor and experienced this first hand. I found that good communication skills both verbal and written were able to overcome this. Since the hypothetical non-technical recruiter in the OP isn't going to un…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I ask potential hires to bring samples of their work and have them discuss it in depth.
I work in an industry that would fire then sue me for taking samples of my actual work.
I think it's time that we consider that the problem might not be that we're hiring people based on the wrong things, but that the simple indicators of future success just might not exist. How long does this have to be an unsolved problem before people start to think, hey, maybe future success just isn't predictable, and certainly not if all you have is a resume and a couple hour interview. Maybe hire people with at l…
As an engineer on the other side of the table - I would much rather this be the case too. I would much rather join a company, devote myself to a problem, a team, and a product, and have the company reward me as such. Instead, engineers who are willing to jump are generally able to attain much higher compensation than those who stay put - so we're incentivized to do so, rather than investing ourselves in a company and…
Notwithstanding the fact there are companies that under-invest in their employees, you make it sound like engineers are being forced to try to maximize compensation.
The reality is that compensation varies, and the differences can be quite pronounced in the technology industry. A startup with minimal revenue and $1 million in funding probably isn't going to be able to compete with Facebook or Google on salary and benefits. Expecting it to is like trying to get blood from a stone.
There is nothing wrong with trying to maximize your compensation at the cost of everything else, but if that's your approach, you need to live with the fact that you will almost always have better opportunities somewhere else. Constantly lamenting the fact that your current employer can't pay you as much as another employer can is no way to live life.
Incidentally, in my experience, a lot of people who allow their job satisfaction to be based entirely on a perception of relative compensation are never happy no matter how much they make. They constantly find ways to convince themselves that they could and should be making more.
I think it's time that we consider that the problem might not be that we're hiring people based on the wrong things, but that the simple indicators of future success just might not exist. How long does this have to be an unsolved problem before people start to think, hey, maybe future success just isn't predictable, and certainly not if all you have is a resume and a couple hour interview. Maybe hire people with at l…
If we had a choice (we don't), how do we decide if we should invest in ourselves or not?
As someone with some high value, tough to get paid that value as an employee; that's a very old lesson.
E.g., I've been programming for decades and am doing so now in my startup, but my programming background doesn't meet the criteria in the job ads. So, I have little or no experience with Python, Java, JavaScript, C++, Linux, Unix, Haskell, Scheme, Lisp, C#, functional programming, etc.
Instead for my platform I selected Windows instead of Linux. On Windows I selected Visual Basic .NET (VB) instead of C#. Why? Because for my work both VB and C# are essentially equivalent ways to build on the common language runtime (CLR) and .NET Framework, ASP.NET, ADO.NET, SQL Server, etc. And for my work, C# and VB differ mostly just in the flavor of syntactic sugar.
I prefer the flavor of VB because: C# borrows much of the deliberately "idiosyncratic" syntax of C. Sure, way back in the DEC PDP-8 with 8 KB of main memory, some of the sparse C syntax may have seemed good to have. While there are still some good uses for C, now for my work C is like digging a Panama Canal with a teaspoon and VB and C# are far ahead. No C for me, thank you. Much the same for C++ (e.g., tough to avoid memory leaks -- tough to be really clear on just what the heck Stroustrup wrote).
So, I like the more verbose, traditional (Algol, Fortran, PL/I, Pascal, etc.) syntax of VB instead of the more sparse, idiosyncratic syntax of C#.
So, to me, VB is easier to write and read and, when I start to hire, teach and learn. So, it's VB.
The .NET Framework? It's a major hunk of software, one of the most important in computing. Microsoft is solidly behind it, and they have several tens of billions of dollars in cash to back what they want. Microsoft has long seen their business as that of supplying a platform for others to build on, and their .NET Framework is one of their most important planks in their platform.
For my work, .NET has a class for nearly everything of any general purpose utility. So, often my code becomes mostly just mortar to join .NET bricks.
For more, ASP.NET has a way to write Web pages, and so far it seems mostly from okay up to fine with me.
ADO.NET has a way to get to relational data base and, again, seems mostly from okay up to fine with me.
For Python, maybe I will use it for some of its good packages, if doing so becomes worthwhile for my work.
For Java, don't need it. If I had already used it, then I wouldn't use it now and would forget it.
For JavaScript, so far for my Web pages ASP.NET has written a little JavaScript for me, but I have yet to write a single line. If I need it, then I will use it -- so far I don't need it.
For Lisp, too many parentheses, and I'd have no idea how to get to the .NET Framework.
For algorithms and data structures, been there, done that, learned it, used it, taught it in college and graduate school, done original work in it.
For the engineering, I've got a Ph.D. in engineering from a world famous research university. Some of that background is crucial for my startup. It appears that the jobs with the job ads would make no use of that background -- a big advantage for my startup. Besides, nearly no one hiring would be able to evaluate my Ph.D. work. And nearly anyone hiring would be afraid to have a Ph.D. subordinate.
So, the job ads and I agree to disagree: They don't want me, and I don't want them.
If my startup works and I need to hire for software development, then I will. Main qualifications: (A) Some okay basic computer usage and familiarity and interest. (B) Good at reading and writing technical material. (C) A good record in a college STEM major. (D) Otherwise looks like potentially a good employee. Having programmed a little would be a plus. That's what I'll hire for. It's not so strange: It's how I got hired in a Watson lab AI group, and they hired for the right stuff.
The job ads for software developers are sick-o. That others are making such mistakes is good for my startup.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wasn't suggesting that people lie on their resume or cover letter. I know, and I did not intend to suggest that. I'm just pointing out that people do, and it distorts resume pre-screening. > I was a defense contractor and experienced this first hand. I found that good communication skills both verbal and written were able to overcome this. Since the hypothetical non-technical recruiter in the OP isn't going to un…
I definitely have some things like that in my work history and I totally understand where you are coming from. In my experience, in this very specific instance of having done things you can't talk about, the aurora around having done classified work usually balances out the fact that you can't talk about it.
That's a bit harder to do in the case of classified material, but maybe there is a similar balance you can strike?