>> Now there's an interesting problem. These guys will have stacks of 
>> people applying to them who are *lying through their teeth* about 
>> their actual capabilities. 
> 
> And they know that!
> 
>> How do I distinguish myself from these frauds?
> 
> At the interview.

Not if you don't get that far because all the lier's CVs looked way 
better. :-(

>>> Yes. That's exactly the attitude to take. Redo the whole resume with 
>>> that sort of thought in mind.
>>
>> What, severely exaggerating the truth throughout?
> 
> Yes. Bluntly, yes.

Isn't that illegal?

>> My point being that only a few of my grades *were* good. Most of them 
>> weren't.
> 
> Yes. That's the point of a resume vs a transcript. ;-)

And *my* point is that I don't have many grades worth mentioning, so if 
I split up my degree by year, it's gonna look pretty thin.

> The only "incomplete" I got was when I went to the wrong class all 
> semester. (Well, it was the right class, I just filled out the wrong 
> code number when I signed up. :-)

My "most impressive" grade was a D-. That doesn't sound very impressive, 
until you realise that I MISSED THE FREAKIN' EXAM! Not only did I manage 
to still pass the module, but I actually got a result several grades 
higher than a fail, on the strength of my coursework alone! (I actually 
missed *all* of the exams that term, and as a result failed everything 
but the programming.)

>>> Pipe organ recitals!
>> LOL! As if anybody is going to care... but sure, I can put that in. ;-)
> 
> You know, if the interviewer also plays the organ, you're right in. 
> Seriously. It's people.

You know... I *did* meet this guy from the Internet once who's 
philosophy on life is that if you enjoy the music of Pink Floyd, you 
must fundamentally be an OK sort of person. Like, "sure, he murdered his 
wife with a golf trophy. But he *loved* Obscured by Clouds, so he can't 
have been that bad a person." WTF?

>>> Eighteen year history of .... then list every language you could 
>>> write Hello World in. :-)
>>
>> Erm, I can see this getting me into trouble. It's unwise to claim 
>> extensive experience with something unless you really do *have* that 
>> experience.
> 
> You only need extensive experience in some of the stuff. "I have 
> extensive experience in many languages. I know blah, blah, and blah." 
> Say it in a way that implies you have extensive experience in all of 
> them, but which can be read to mean you have extensive experience in 
> some of them.
> 
> What's the worst that happens: They don't hire you.

Er, no... They hire you, find out you're lying, and press criminal 
charges for fraud. o_O

>>> Passion for teaching and mentoring, with a strong track record of 
>>> explaining complex topics in understandable ways. Samples available 
>>> on request.
>>
>> Er, dude... like *what*? :-P
> 
> All the posts you've put up here?  About Haskell and everything else?

Perhaps you mean all the posts I've put up here that expire after 30 
days? And besides, how many people have actually learned Haskell? So 
far, I think Warp is about the only person. (And he says he did that by 
reading tutorials online, not from anything *I* wrote.)

>> Whohewho? o_O
> 
> http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=wirth

:-P

Post a reply to this message