111–120 of 265 posts
> I saw a job post the other day. > It required 4+ years of experience in FastAPI. > I couldn't apply as I only have 1.5+ years of experience since I created that thing. https://twitter.com/tiangolo/status/1281946592459853830
If I were you I would have applied with exactly this sentence, even if I were not looking for a job.
Isn't the whole X years of experience with kind of silly anyways? You grow as a programmer by exposing yourself to new ideas and ways of doing things, but this pretty much gives you a low number of years in a bunch of stuff, not impressive on a resume.
I have become less and less convinced on this. Most recently I had choices for what would ostensibly be a Go-centric job between generalists who had a little Go experience, and people really good at Go, but not as much at the rest of our stack. We went with the generalist under the theory you’re advocating and it was a disaster. The people we hired learned Go, but it takes a while to grok the paradigms and really dev…
Some are also designed to be impossible to satisfy so that they can bring non-local talent to satisfy Labour Market tests. Not sure if it is in this case, but there have been plenty of such cases in the past.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only thing I don't like about it is how every line in this tweet ends in a 'fitting' emoji I'm not even that old (born in the 80s), but is that the style adults use now?
Adults have been using emoticons in casual online conversation for decades. Certainly for most of your lifetime.
Isn't the whole X years of experience with kind of silly anyways? You grow as a programmer by exposing yourself to new ideas and ways of doing things, but this pretty much gives you a low number of years in a bunch of stuff, not impressive on a resume.
I have become less and less convinced on this. Most recently I had choices for what would ostensibly be a Go-centric job between generalists who had a little Go experience, and people really good at Go, but not as much at the rest of our stack. We went with the generalist under the theory you’re advocating and it was a disaster. The people we hired learned Go, but it takes a while to grok the paradigms and really dev…
If you're scaling up quickly or employing a bunch of people to immediately work on a new project, and expect them to stay an average of 2 years, you need preexisting experience.
If you're in a company where people stay on average 4-5 years and, and there's already a well established team with a good set of conventions and technical leadership, a generalist is probably a better call.
Speaking of dubious recruiting practices, can anyone explain why applicants frequently get ghosted? I mean some companies give zero reply after the workflow system acks receipt of an application. I feel this reflects poorly--in public--on a company's culture. The glossy "work here" page means nothing if there's no follow through in practice. A human may have spent days researching your company and preparing a cover l…
The common answer to this question is, it would take way too long to answer these thousands of candidates that are applying to your position. Obviously, that's nonsense unless you're Google or Facebook.
At huge companies, I suspect CVs just get lost in the system somewhere when they don't have the correct keywords for automated parsing. In that case, you'll hear no response because no human has seen the CV.
At smaller companies, I honestly don't think that a response of "we decided not to go further with the CV, but thank you for applying, and please, feel free to apply to any other positions for different consideration" would be too much to ask.
Obviously a typo, they probably meant 1-2 years, which is realistic. While this is probably not actually the case here, I see it quite often that companies have unrealistic expectations when it comes to work experience with technologies like k8s. For example it is quite common here in Berlin to expect 4+ years of k8s experience. Which is unrealistic to find taking into account that k8s initial release was 6 years ago…
I cant see missing the '-' as a typo
Alternatively, I can also imagine recruiters just following familiar patterns for increasing "required" experience levels as they "level-up" the job description as a crutch for articulating requirements. But the problem here isn't the recruiters, they are just instruments. They often shouldn't be drafting the initial baseline JD at all and should never be posting the final one without approval.
Overstating requisites, or asking for far too many requisites for a particular job and then settling for less has been a widespread practice since for as long as I can remember in technology fields. When I was younger, I never thought of it as a bad thing, since it scared away those who weren't bold enough to apply for the job - ultimately reducing the competition for the jobs that I've applied for. Over the past 3 d…
However, it holds back a lot of people who simply do not know that job descriptions are bullshit. Being bold is one thing, being a compulsive bullshitter is another. You probably do not want the latter on the team, unless you work at IBM specifically.