61–70 of 113 posts
Thus is the case here. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4050952
However, it's impressive for a first project. I hope you stick with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to be reasonable about the scale. A 4/5 in English by your standards would also imply a deep understanding of root languages, old English, literature etc...
Becoming "fluent" in a programming language is vastly different from becoming "fluent" in a natural language. I hate when people make that comparison. How often does one ask for the etymology of the "if" statement and to what extent is such an understanding required for programming language mastery?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like it, but in 3 months she got 2/5 in rails, 2/5 in javascript and 2/5 in git? I doubt thats even possible... I've been working with each of those for ~6 years and I'd still only put myself at a 4 and if I was being generous. It's funny the longer you work with something the more you realize how little you understand it. I probably would have put myself at a 2/5 in those categories 5 years ago, but looking back,…
As if rating one's skills in a particular subject with a 1-5 rating under no context bears much meaning... it's so arbitrary as to be insignificant (but it could be a cool concept if not abused). It also depends on one's motivation for representing their skill level; for example, jobseekers probably overestimate their skill levels. It would be great to have a standardized rating system based on a few different tiers…
I really like the skills section http://nukaco.la/skills.html I wish this was standard practice for resumes, even though it's subjective assessment it's really easy to compare relative strengths and weaknesses, for example it's very easy to see "dabbled in haskell, very proficient in garage band" just by glancing
I think it’s especially useful in showing off relative skills. It doesn’t make sense to compare across categories (or – even crazier – people), it does make sense to compare within categories. It doesn’t have to be super-precise, but it makes it easy to see where someone sees their core-competency and with what they at least played around with (and are likely to learn quickly). How good they are actually at their core-competency has to be determined in the interview process (if there is no other objective way to do it) but that is going to be the case either way. The self-assessment is just a little hint for whoever reads your resumé to help them judge your skills better.
Sometimes it’s probably better to be more descriptive, especially when it comes to foreign language skills, but it always also depends on the job. The way I do it, the self-assessment also changes depending on the job. When I put myself down as “very good” with SPSS then I’m only talking about SPSS-knowledge that is actually important for the job I’m applying to. It doesn’t mean that I know every feature of SPSS, it does mean that I know every feature that is relevant for the job.
(It’s probably always best if you can substantiate your subjective assessment with objective facts. I put myself down as “very good” in my English-language skills and I have the A in the Cambridge Certificate in Advanced English to prove it.)
I don’t really understand all the incomprehension at the scales. Putting yourself down at five points obviously doesn’t mean that you know everything or there is no more to learn. That would be non-sensical. Don’t even try to compare that self-assessment to other people, if you do, pick a random group of people with similar qualifications. Someone who puts themselves down at five points would see themselves as quite some ways above average in that group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like it, but in 3 months she got 2/5 in rails, 2/5 in javascript and 2/5 in git? I doubt thats even possible... I've been working with each of those for ~6 years and I'd still only put myself at a 4 and if I was being generous. It's funny the longer you work with something the more you realize how little you understand it. I probably would have put myself at a 2/5 in those categories 5 years ago, but looking back,…
As if rating one's skills in a particular subject with a 1-5 rating under no context bears much meaning... it's so arbitrary as to be insignificant (but it could be a cool concept if not abused). It also depends on one's motivation for representing their skill level; for example, jobseekers probably overestimate their skill levels. It would be great to have a standardized rating system based on a few different tiers…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As if rating one's skills in a particular subject with a 1-5 rating under no context bears much meaning... it's so arbitrary as to be insignificant (but it could be a cool concept if not abused). It also depends on one's motivation for representing their skill level; for example, jobseekers probably overestimate their skill levels. It would be great to have a standardized rating system based on a few different tiers…
I mean how advanced can you be in a scripting language ? There is no memory management, no low level systems knowledge required. Can you give me an example of writing really really advanced code in Ruby or Python ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like it, but in 3 months she got 2/5 in rails, 2/5 in javascript and 2/5 in git? I doubt thats even possible... I've been working with each of those for ~6 years and I'd still only put myself at a 4 and if I was being generous. It's funny the longer you work with something the more you realize how little you understand it. I probably would have put myself at a 2/5 in those categories 5 years ago, but looking back,…
As if rating one's skills in a particular subject with a 1-5 rating under no context bears much meaning... it's so arbitrary as to be insignificant (but it could be a cool concept if not abused). It also depends on one's motivation for representing their skill level; for example, jobseekers probably overestimate their skill levels. It would be great to have a standardized rating system based on a few different tiers…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As if rating one's skills in a particular subject with a 1-5 rating under no context bears much meaning... it's so arbitrary as to be insignificant (but it could be a cool concept if not abused). It also depends on one's motivation for representing their skill level; for example, jobseekers probably overestimate their skill levels. It would be great to have a standardized rating system based on a few different tiers…
I mean how advanced can you be in a scripting language ? There is no memory management, no low level systems knowledge required. Can you give me an example of writing really really advanced code in Ruby or Python ?
At one job I ended up having a lot of work writing language bindings from C to what is commonly considered a "scripting language" (TCL), so it's easy to have to deal with memory management and low level systems knowledge in relation to a scripting language (knowing the semantics of memory management within a language drastically changes how you have to write the bindings). However, the idea is to rate your skill with that particular language. No matter what the most advanced state is of a language, a 5/5 (or whatever the scale is) means that you can accomplish the most advanced task possible in the language. That doesn't mean that someone who is, say, 5/5 in Perl, will have the same skillset and capabilities as someone who is a 5/5 in AT&T syntax assembler. However, there are a list of base assumptions of skills they do have that may align with what we need as a developer when looking at resumes.