From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 27 05:27:44 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 977BD106564A for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 05:27:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from mx02.qsc.de (mx02.qsc.de [213.148.130.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27D5D8FC15 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 05:27:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from r56.edvax.de (port-92-195-124-250.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.124.250]) by mx02.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B773B1E249 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:27:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from r56.edvax.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by r56.edvax.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id q3R5Rgsb001976 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:27:42 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:27:41 +0200 From: Polytropon To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-Id: <20120427072741.190e2408.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: References: <20120424175026.GD1303@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <201204241833.q3OIXwTR013401@mail.r-bonomi.com> <20120424190227.GA1773@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <20120425053133.e920b091.freebsd@edvax.de> <20120425064507.GA4673@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <20120425085555.36f91b3a.freebsd@edvax.de> Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.1 (GTK+ 2.24.5; i386-portbld-freebsd8.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Polytropon List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 05:27:44 -0000 On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:45:53 -0700, David Brodbeck wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Polytropon wrote: > > Thanks for that article, it's really sad. One of the main > > problems is (in my opinion) that GENERIC SKILLS aren't > > recognozed with the big importane they have. >=20 > This applies to hiring as well as education. When they read a job > application, HR people seem to basically do keyword matching. They > don't know or care about generic skills.=20 That's a shortsightet view, especially when you consider the typical lifecyle of software. Being "educated" on one specific version that doesn't share many similarities with competitor's products or own follow-up versions, you're lost. Generic skills (such as "generic Linux and UNIX skills") enable you to become familiar with _any_ Unix-like operating system very quickly, and in a world software changing dayly this is an important skill. Additionally, generic skills enable you to learn _anything_ quickly, such as a new scripting language, or a DTP application. They all share generic concepts (like some kind of syntax for a programming language, or some kind of UI design for a GUI based program). And you're right: HR people don't do more than keyword matching. That's the only thing they have time for. > If the posting says > 'Microsoft Word experience' the words 'Microsoft Word' better appear > somewhere in the resume.=20 It's even worse. There are some "standardized skill profiles" (which aren't standardized) that one is expected to include. I currently have an example here. It contains >100 times the word "Microsoft", but lacks essential stuff that one would assume when applying for a job as a virtualisation / system administrator. Some non-MICROS~1 stuff is mentioned in footnotes, most of it even improperly spelled or not attributed to the proper company. For example, if you're familiar with StarOffice, OpenOffice and LibreOffice (which you can acquire knowledge in _for free_), you should be able to conclude how the MICROS~1 products work, any version of them (even though they are very different and incon- sistent, and you _cannot_ learn them for free). So this would match the skill "office applications", but maybe because the word "Microsoft" doesn't appear several times, this skill is rejected. This also works with commercial UNIXes that are hard to try for free. But with your generic skills, you can find out how things work, because the basics are the same everywhere. You can even install "Hercules" on your FreeBSD machine and find out how an IBM /360 mainframe is operated - teaching you basic skills how to deal with z/OS, CMS, TSO, REXX, ISPF and other (primarily commercial) applications you might encounter). > Likewise, if they want experience with a > particular programming language, you'd better have experience with > THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE...never mind if you already know five and can > pick up another in a week's time. That is correct. But being able to do so depends on the employer to _publish_ his expectations in an understandable format. In a setting where job applications are typically filtered by an external HR company which _also_ makes the job announcement, you'll hardly find them. Instead, there's lots of blahblah like "we're an established company", "a prominent market leader" or "young and dynamic expanding service provider" - and then "programmer" or "system administrator". You often don't find any hint who the _real_ employer would be. And in the end, it turns out that they are searching for a phone monkey in 1st level customer support. :-) > Generic skills aren't recognized because they're hard to judge and > test for.=20 Hard to judge - no, but only by "try and watch" which often is not possible or not intended. Hard to test for - true, as proper test would have to be developed first, and I assume that's rather expensive. There are generic tests like FizzBuzz, but it doesn't say _that_ much, and it's not enough to use _only_ this test. However, it's a nice "fall-through" test if you want to hire a programmer and he doesn't get it done by any programming language _he_ may choose. :-) Generic skills are _the_ skills you need to learn something new. Stupidly repeating things doesn't work. Being tied to "the one" way of doing things doesn't fit a quickly changing world. You can't "rely on" vendor lock-in everywhere. > People want quantifiable, objective things to weed out > applicants.=20 They often _assume_ that this is provided by colorful paper, typically hanging on a wall in your back, the "wall of fame". There are many certificates that state you actually know something, but there are more than enough that just cost money, and you get them, no matter what you know ("certificate spam", if I may say that) - those are _worthless_. I think "objective" is very hard to find here. Many considerations depend on assumptions and expectations. For example, you want a programmer. You don't state for what precisely (kind of project and programming language). In the end, it turns out to be some proprietary system where even _learning_ it costs lots of money because there is not much public stuff for autodidacts (and of course no way to try it for free). You expect a "kind of geek" (because that's the established stereotype for a good and skilled programmer), but you expect him to "obey corporate dresscode". You expect him to work in an environment he may not feel comfortable (e. g. proprietary environment, fixed working times, I mean, come on, that's so 1900-ish). He should be between 18 and 25 years old, and he should have successfully finished unversity with a high-level degree. He also should have business experiences of 5 or more years. He should also have worked in a company like yours in the past years, with no "big break" of unemployment. He should have learned (on his costs!) what you are expecting. You are willing to pay him the same money he would get when he would be unemployed, because "that's what everyone pays". And he won't work for your company. He will work for another comany so your company can get an invoice for his work by the company he works for instead - "material costs goooood, personnel costs baaaaaad" (you need that for tax magic later on). (Okay, that's a typical description of the job market in IT you currently find in Germany. US and other countries may be different and not that retarded.) Quantifying such skills is very hard. "Self-estimating" one's skills is the thing applicants typically do in their applications. Is this objective? No, it's mostly highly subjective depending on individual experiences and findings. To turn that into _comparable_ numbers would require scientists (psychologists, mathematicians, sociologists, IT researchers) to construct tests that exactly map that. I know there are several standardized tests, but some of them are relatively old. In our IT world, "old" starts at 12 months (or maybe even earlier). And getting generic skills into those scales looks nearly impossible to me... On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:52:56 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: > Indeed -- and the employer who bucks this trend does him/her self a huge > service, because large numbers of very skilled and/or talented people are > being rejected on entirely arbitrary criteria that have little or no > correlation to their ability to do the job.=20 A main problem here as that many (maybe most?) of the _really_ skilled applicants don't waste their time on certificates. They have many qualities and abilities, several man's lives worth of knowledge, and long experience. But they don't have certificates that _say so_. Especially those not being directly employed may find it problematic to get any piece of paper stating _what_ they did for their customers. I do not deny that employing a new guy in the company would be cheap. It's not. It requires time and money. Reading applications, judging qualifications, doing interviews and so on. That's why companies tend to externalize this task to HR services. The result however is highly debatable, and the "money argument" is weak. Companies spend _lots_ of money for "certified processes", for extraordinary expensive licensing, for hardware, for software, for energy. This money "is available" and is spent regardless of existing alternatives. So _if_ they would become more efficient on those expenses, they could _invest_ in a thing that's much more valuable than software licenses or service contracts: I'm obviously talking about skilled and motivated personnel, because let's face it: "money works" doesn't work. Money does not work. People do work. And if you don't treat them well, they'll leave the company sooner or later. You can externalize a lot, but not everything. Companies should judge how important their "human capital" is to them, because _that_ is what's primarily driving the markets (okay, at least the consumer markets and the sectors where R&D and inventions are made). On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:43:06 -0400, Jerry wrote: > Wouldn't it be far easier for this "glut of job applicants" to either > become proficient in the skills stated in the job description for which > they are applying or do what everyone else does; i.e. lie on their > r=E9sum=E9. If the mountain will not come to Mahomet, Mahomet must go to > the mountain. Here the circle closes. I think many applicants actually do what Jerry suggested: Lie in their "skill profile" or resume. The result? Quite simple: People _not_ being qualified for a job occupying this precious workspace where someone with the proper skills could have find a job. You often find this in office-related jobs: People who are evidently unable to do the simplest PC stuff - but those are employed! Even more, they cost the employer lots of money (by wasting time and not getting the work done), but nobody fires them. And because the positions _are_ occupied, applicants are rejected not because they're "not qualified enough", but because the job already "is in use". You often wonder _how_ certain people got the jobs they have... Honestly, I've got a lot to learn about how business works. :-) --=20 Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...