[Tfug] [OT] Thinking about getting an online degree

[Bexley Hall]

> >> Oh, and to add to that, the Federal Government won't
> >> look at you unless you are either too good for the position, 
> >> or can lie through your teeth.
> >
> > (sigh)  Do *not* lie on your resume or in an interview.
> > It is just *too* easy to catch people doing this.  And,
> > even if you land the job, it can be used to summarily
> > dismiss you at a later date when the truth comes out.
>   
> I agree entirely, but also don't sell yourself short,
> if you have done something, it should be listed in some 
> way, shape or form.  Previously, I did not work with SANs
> in a major way, but I have worked with a few FC
> and iSCSI sans here and there.  Listing that got me the
> contacts for my current position.

I've found that there are two types of positions/employers,
in general.  Those looking to fill an *immediate* need and
those looking to make an *investment*.

The former class is looking at your resume as a checklist;
"does he/she have *exactly* the skills/experience that I
need *today*?"  The latter is looking to see if you will
*become* an asset to their organization.  I.e., you may not
have done *exactly* what they want but your experience
suggests that you probably *will* be able to do it.

> > I've caught many job applicants in bald-faced lies.
> > Usually, misrepresenting what they have done (i.e.,
> > claiming to have done something when, in fact, it
> > was someone else who "did" it -- their involvement
> > was peripheral, at best).
>   
> Same here

(sigh)  This is sad.  I guess people either assume they'll
never get *caught* -- or -- they can "fake it" good enough
to make it appear that they have certain experience (or
education)... though perhaps of a "poor quality"  :-/

> > Note that their are rules (laws?) over what a previous
> > employer can/will disclose to a prosepective new employer.
> > But, those rules do not apply to your "work-mates"
> > (though one still has to be wary of libel).
> >
> > Some industries are very small, tight-knit groups.
> > "Everyone knows everyone".  So, it is easy to make a
> > call "off the record" and get The Straight Dope on
> > a prospective applicant without going through "formal
> > channels".  I've done this, often, to catch people
> > misrepresenting themselves and/or their accomplishments.

I once had an applicant drop a source code listing for a
product in front of me *claiming* to have written it.
Since I knew the actual author *personally*, it was amusing
to watch the expression on his face as I asked:  "And what
part of this was Bill Figgledorf responsible for? ..."

Can you spell "hear a pin drop"?  :>

> >> To make it to the local hiring managers, you have to answer
> >> every question on the application perfectly.  Any sign that 
> >> you can't answer every question perfectly, and you don't 
> >> make the list sent on from HR.
>   
> In this case, they had two programming related questions on a
> System/Network admin job application.  While it is a good idea
> to ask peripheral questions to see how rounded the applicant is,
> it's a bad idea to refuse to let the applicant into the pool, 
> as they did not answer "very knowledgeable" to a non-primary
> question.

Understood.   Most of the positions I have been involved with
(on both sides of the desk) are design related.  So, you look
for some basic skills -- and then quickly move off into more
abstract issues:  "What sort of issues do you think would
pose problems with this (hypothetical) device?"  etc.

One of the most memorable interviews for me as an applicant
had a series of questions somewhat like:  (company makes hand
tools)

"How would you design a part numbering system for our products?"

"Well, I'd probably make 1xxxxxx be hammers, 2xxxxxx be 
screwdrivers, 3xxxxxx be pliers/wrenches, 4xxxxxx be tape
rules and other measurement tools, 5xxxxx...."

At which point, the employer pulled a hammer with a tape rule
built into the handle out of his desk drawer and said, "So,
where does this fit in?  1xxxxxx or 4xxxxxx"

Of course, there is no right answer (given my naive numbering
scheme!) so I volunteered, "Use 9xxxxxx for 'other' tools"
and figured I had just side-stepped a potential disaster!

The interviewer then spent the next several minutes pulling
all sorts of oddball tools out of his desk drawer -- each
*obviously* destined to receive a 9xxxxxx number!  :<

He smiled and told me:  "The way you design a numbering
system is 'you start with *1*' ..."  (I have found that
advice to be *amazingly* helpful over the years in many
different ways!).  It is amusing how it highlights the
tendency we have to want to impose order on things that
are inherently unordered.

> >> As a hiring manager, I think that's nuts.  You need to
> >> evaluate each person's pluses and minuses, and figure 
> >> out the best fit for the position.
> >
> > That's a laudable goal -- but I think the practicalities
> > of most hiring situations result in many artificial and
> > arbitrary (see above) criteria being imposed.  *Hopefully*,
> > the person doing the hiring/evaluation is at least *aware*
> > of any of these arbitrary criteria he/she may be imposing.
> > Subconcious prejudices are considerably harder to identify.
>   
> In the case of the federal hiring system, the people making
> the first level of cuts have no idea about the job or it's
> requirements.  They are evaluation if you answered "perfectly"
> for each question.  Only the top 5 or top 10 applicants 
> actually make it to the hiring committee.

Ah, OK.  I've never been through that sort of process on either
end.  HR folks would sort *qualifications* (using a loose set
of criteria) and the actual manager would decide how to 'test'
each applicant -- possibly each differently!  The people with whom
the applicant will ultimately be working sit down with him/her
during the interview process so they can buy into any decision
*before* it is made.