Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:46:52 -0400 From: Jerry <jerry@seibercom.net> To: FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U Message-ID: <20120427164652.4f021ab1@scorpio> In-Reply-To: <20120427195840.GA15455@hemlock.hydra> References: <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> <CAHhngE0OX=b15XSVh89kOurh_6riaL-L5oT_E%2B52Onyhsx7rQw@mail.gmail.com> <20120426215256.GA30059@hemlock.hydra> <20120426184306.783f9b4b@scorpio> <20120427163224.GA29149@hemlock.hydra> <20120427135710.2f66d2ac@scorpio> <20120427195840.GA15455@hemlock.hydra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:58:40 -0600
Chad Perrin articulated:
>On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:57:10PM -0400, Jerry wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:32:24 -0600 Chad Perrin articulated:
>> >On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 06:43:06PM -0400, Jerry wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:52:56 -0600 Chad Perrin articulated:
>> >> >On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 02:45:53PM -0700, David Brodbeck wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Generic skills aren't recognized because they're hard to judge
>> >> >> and test for. People want quantifiable, objective things to
>> >> >> weed out applicants. This is also why credit scoring has
>> >> >> become so popular -- sure, someone's credit score may not tell
>> >> >> whether they'd be a good employee or not, but it's a
>> >> >> convenient, objective way to throw out a bunch of resumes.
>> >> >
>> >> >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. People who use such critera are forcing themselves
>> >> >to compete with everyone else in the industry using the same
>> >> >criteria, leaving a glut of job candidates who would be great at
>> >> >the job waiting for someone else to give them a chance.
>> >>
>> >> 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 résumé. If the mountain will not come to
>> >> Mahomet, Mahomet must go to the mountain.
>> >
>> >1. Pretty much every employer has a slightly different list of
>> >keywords. I guess you think all these job candidates should learn
>> >every skill in the world.
>>
>> No, I think they should learn the one(s) most sought after in their
>> chosen field. If 90% of the potential openings in a specific field
>> are requesting proficiency with MS Word, what do you think any
>> legitimate applicants should become proficient in?
>
>Right -- because all the keywords you need will always be Microsoft
>Word.
>
>Admit it: you're just making up half-baked excuses to disagree now.
If the requirement is for proficiency in MS Word, Excel or whatever and
you lack those skills then you are not qualified for the job. Period.
If those skills are the ones most requested then the applicant should
learn them. It doesn't get any simpler than that. If a job required
proficiency with 3+ years minimum experience in c++ and you only had
knowledge of Pascal, would you still believe you were qualified?
>> >2. Lying is bad. Go fall in a hole, now.
>>
>> Yes, but it is never-the-less the norm on way too many resumes. I
>> have read where it is estimated that 1 out of every 3 is either a
>> gross over statement of fact or just a complete fabrication. My own
>> (original) resume, written by a professional resume writer many
>> years ago, absolutely astounded me. I had no idea I was as
>> proficient and skilled in so many areas. As the writer explained, it
>> is not what you say but how you say it. Just because I once wrote a
>> two page article that got published in a cheap magazine does not
>> mean that I am an accomplished author with numerous credits to my
>> name -- or does it?
>
>No, it doesn't. Maybe "an accomplished author with one credit" to your
>name. Amusingly, that'll turn out to be a great way for employers to
>notice you're exaggerating with that "accopmlished author" bit, too.
>Only by lying ("numerous credits") can you allay suspicions for a
>moment in those credulous enough to not ask for samples (which
>absolutely does not make it okay).
Now you are being naive. There are numerous examples of people in both
corporate and government jobs that have made out right lies as to
their education, etcetera. Some of those frauds have gone undetected
for years. The majority of resumes for entry level jobs are rarely if
ever given more than a perfunctory look.
The bottom line is if you want a job, you either learn or acquire the
criteria required for the job, or find a way to BS your way into it
and hope you can pull it off. No legitimate employer is going to change
his criteria to accommodate your skills.
--
Jerry ♔
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__________________________________________________________________
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120427164652.4f021ab1>