>> I mean, it's nice to go play with the snow and everything, but I'm
>> always very relieved to get back home again afterwards. I wouldn't want
>> to never return home ever again.
> 
> Home is where you hang your hat.  If you turned Switzerland into "home", 
> then you would be "home" and able to ski more frequently.

"Home" is where you feel safe and secure - which isn't Switzerland. It's 
nice to visit, but I wouldn't want to be forced to stay there.

>> I don't think it's feasible for me to get an enjoyable job. Let's face
>> it, nobody is going to pay me to sit around geeking out over monadic
>> combinator libraries. They're going to pay me to get a job done, no
>> matter how boring it turns out to be.
> 
> Well, again, I call BS on this.  It's feasible, but it's not going to 
> fall in your lap.  You have to seek it out.

Clearly jobs don't find you. (Unless you're ludicrously talented and 
very well-known. I am neither.) The question is whether the sort of job 
I've been looking for actually exists, and how many other people are 
competing for it.

Most of the stuff I do has no useful function. Nobody is going to pay me 
to do something useless. The stuff that *is* vaguely useful is extremely 
niche. It seems to me that what I'm doing is the equivilent of trying to 
get a job as the next J. K. Rowling - there's only room for a tiny few 
such people, and there's a lot of hopeful contenders who are far more 
qualified than me. I need to target something more realistic.

> And yes, I know you have 
> tried - but you give up FAR too easily - you send a CV and don't hear 
> back, so you say "well, that was a waste of time" instead of being 
> persistent.  Companies don't want passive employees - they want hungry 
> employees - hungry for a challenge, ready to step up and to persist in 
> doing what they want to do.

Applying for jobs isn't what I really want to do. (It's one of the most 
depressing things *ever*! Surely nobody enjoys doing this...)

You go to some jobs website. You click the button that says "apply", and 
it tells you "your CV has been forwarded". You never hear back. What 
else can you do? You don't know what company you're applying to, you 
can't contact them, you usually can't even contact the recruiter except 
through the website. And when you do speak to recruiters, they always 
tell you that "we're processing your application now". If you ring them 
every day, or you ring them once a month, it's always the same tune. 
"We're working on it." Seriously, what more can you actually do?

> Applying for a job and then giving up 
> because your initial contact didn't give up (a) doesn't get people's 
> attention, and (b) isn't *REALLY* trying to make a change.

Ah yes, nothing like somebody telling you that all your hard work "isn't 
really trying" to motivate you to continue.

> How many times do we have to tell you that just because it's listed in 
> the job requirements doesn't mean it's mandatory?  Job ads are generally 
> written by HR people who don't actually know the first thing about the 
> job they're advertising.

Ah, I see. So what you're saying is I should read this:

   "Candidates are expected to have a relevant PhD in Finance, 
Economics, Mathematics or Computing Science. In exceptional cases we may 
consider candidates with outstanding degree grades."

as meaning this:

   "We will accept anybody who applies."

Sure, seems completely plausible to me. :-P

> So let's be real here - you're giving up before 
> even trying because you think everyone is 100% honest and accurate in 
> stating their job requirements.  If someone asked for 30 years of Windows 
> experience, would you apply for the job, or would you say "I don't have 
> 30 years of Windows experience" and not bother trying?  EVEN THOUGH 30 
> YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITH WINDOWS IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE?

If somebody says that they want 3 year's experience, they might accept 
2. They might look at you if you can prove that you know what you're 
doing by some other method. If you have something really outstanding to 
show them, they might still consider you.

The above makes it perfectly clear that they *expect* a PhD before 
they'll even bother to speak to you - or at the worst, you should have 
truly exceptional degree grades. I have neither. They're going to have 
an electronic system to automatically filter out anything that doesn't 
say "PhD" on it somewhere. My CV will never even be seen by a human being.

I might as well go apply to be the CEO of Sony BMG. I'd have as much 
chance of success.

The fact of the matter is, there are some jobs that you're not qualified 
for. And for me, this is one of them.

> Why should they hire you?  Because if you're applying for the job, you 
> have some passion in the area (because you wouldn't apply for a job you 
> didn't have passion for, right?) and because you know your skills will 
> grow as you learn the job.

By that metric, they should just hire anybody who actually applies. 
Doesn't work like that.

> Nobody - and I mean *NOBODY* has 100% of the skills they need for a job 
> they've just started.

No. But you *do* need to have more skills than anybody else who applies 
- otherwise they're going to hire the other person.

> So don't think for one minute that people won't hire you because you 
> don't have 100% of what's on the job requirements - nobody really expects 
> that, and you need to learn that.

Sure, but they expect you to have at least *some* of the necessary skills.

> Formal education is overrated.

Pity. That's about the only good thing I've got going for me.

>> You want to design digital logic? We have engineering graduates who have
>> been *actually doing* this stuff for, like, the last 8 years. Why should
>> be hire some guy who's read about it in a book when we have a queue of
>> people who have done it for real?
> 
> Again, everyone has to start somewhere.  Apply for a job like that;

I did?

> if 
> you don't get it, ask the hiring people what would help you be better 
> prepared for a position like that.

They just said "we feel that the other applications have more relevant 
skills".

> You're not quite 30 if I remember 
> correctly - you've got plenty of time to learn new skills, but new skills 
> take time to develop.

My point remains - why hire some guy who read about designing digital 
logic from a book, when there's a guy standing right next to him who has 
*actually done it*, for real, and got it to work? It's a no-brainer.

>> I need to be realistic about what work it is actually possible for me to
>> get. I'm never going to be a software architect or a document writer.
>> These jobs are few and far between, and there are plenty of people far
>> more qualified than I am already competing for them. I need to look at
>> jobs I might actually be able to get - and I doubt location makes a huge
>> difference to that.
> 
> It does make a huge difference.  Look at the number of software architect 
> positions in, say, Lagos, and the number in San Francisco.  Huge 
> difference - and someone who might not get such a position in Lagos 
> certainly might be able to where there's actual demand for their skills.
> 
> That's what it boils down to - supply and demand.  The demand is not 
> uniform the world over, so if you want to do something specific, you have 
> to go where those jobs are in demand.

I meant that the location isn't going to chance me not having the 
necessary skills and qualifications.

>> Like I said, some people *like* to travel. I don't.
> 
> You seem to like going to Switzerland. ;-)

I like *being* there. I don't like *getting* there. ;-) (Or coming back, 
actually.) Like I said, nice to visit, wouldn't want to live there.

>> I've tried applying to Wolfram. (They specifically requested
>> applicants.) I applied to some bluechip on the M25. I've applied for
>> just about every Haskell-related job going in the UK. Want to take a
>> guess how many of these people even bothered to reply?
> 
> You applied.  Did you follow up on the application?  Or did you passively 
> wait for something to happen?

OK, so I'll answer the rhetorical question: Exactly one of these 
companies bothered to reply. The bluechip people. I applied late 
Wednesday night. At approximately 120 seconds past 9AM the next morning, 
they sent me a rejection email. I emailled them back asking why, and 
they just said "we feel other applications have a more appropriate set 
of skills" and "no this was not an automated decision". (Pull the other 
one, it's got bells on...) They were seemingly quite friendly about it, 
but I still didn't get anywhere.

(I recall at the time Scott said something about his company website 
still having vacancies on display, even though in fact none currently 
exist. That's nice...)

> Don't let life happen to you - take control!

You say this as if it's actually physically possible.

Post a reply to this message