>> Most of the stuff I do has no useful function. 
> 
> I don't believe that's true.  Just because you feel it has no useful 
> function doesn't mean it has no useful function.  You need to stop 
> substituting your view of the world for the way the world works and then 
> assume that because you think something is useless (or that it is useless 
> to you), that it's useless for everyone.

If you know of a commercial application for Mandelbrot plotters, I'd be 
interested in hearing about it...

> I've been most successful at applying for jobs not through the front 
> door, but through a side door.  Find an advantage and USE IT.

Fair enough.

>> Ah yes, nothing like somebody telling you that all your hard work "isn't
>> really trying" to motivate you to continue.
> 
> Tell me what you've done in the last 30 days, then.

To be honest, I completely gave up on the job hunt a few months ago. It 
seems so utterly fruitless. As I've indicated, I'm planning to start 
again in the new year, looking in the direction of sysadmin rather than 
programmer to see if that gets me any further.

> Only you can motivate you.  I can't do it, nobody can do it.  Hell, I 
> can't even provide you with an incentive to make a change.  I'm telling 
> you what I'm seeing from over here - you fill out an application or send 
> in a CV and then you wait to hear something.

As far as I know, that's how people get jobs. I don't really know what 
else there is to do.

I know you hear of people who such a ridiculously superhuman level of 
self-confidence that they just walk into a building and say "I think you 
should hire me", and it sometimes actually works. But, obviously, this 
is beyond my capabilities.

> You do not persist in 
> trying to make a change.  That's what I'm seeing - so if that's not 
> accurate, then correct my perception.

It's one part not knowing what the hell to try, and two parts just 
lacking the motivation to keep going in the face of unending rejections.

>> 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
> 
> Very often that *is* the case, yes.

...OK, well I guess there's really little point in bothering to read the 
job description then. o_O

> You've got nothing to lose by applying for a job that you'd like to have 
> regardless of the requirements.  The worst that happens is it's not a 
> good fit.  The best that happens is you get the job.

Or rather, the worst that happens is some guy phones me up and asks me 
what the hell I'm playing at daring to apply for a job I'm clearly not 
qualified for, and I get to spend the rest of the day feeling like crap...

> It depends on how badly they need to fill the position as well.

Well, that's true too. I only got my current job because they were 
absolutely desperate, and I was cheap.

> But you're getting tied down in the details instead of hearing what I'm 
> saying in a more general way:  If you see a programming position that 
> looks interesting to you, apply for it.  Don't read the detailed 
> requirements over other than to see if it's an area that you're 
> interested in.  Demonstrate the ability to apply programming skills to a 
> problem (which is something you can do).

I suppose. Trouble is, you can't really show them anything unless you 
can get them to actually talk to you. I usually don't get that far.

>>> 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.
> 
> That's not what I said, and you know that.

No, it actually looks to me like you're saying anybody who applies for a 
job must be really movatived, and that's reason enough to hire them. 
That doesn't make a lot of sense.

> But you seem to think that it 
> works by having 100% of the skills requested (you think "requested" = 
> "demanded") going in.  *THAT* is NOT how it works.

As you say, nobody is a 100% fit. But I *do* expect that you'd need to 
be, say, an 80% fit in order to get hired. If you aren't, somebody else 
will be.

> Your assumptions and knowledge are based on the experience of being hired 
> once.  My assumptions and knowledge are based on having worked in several 
> jobs in several different industries.  Why do you continue to insist that 
> you know better what I'm talking about than I do?

> 4.  Lack of good references:

Ooo, that reminds me... My CV claims that I have references. I'd better 
go find some. o_O

> 5.  Lack of specific credentials:

So somebody can get not hired for not having a Cisco certificate, but if 
you don't have a PhD certificate that's no problem?

>>> Formal education is overrated.
>> Pity. That's about the only good thing I've got going for me.
> 
> I would disagree.  You've got an extensive informal education that shows 
> that you are a motivated self-learner, and that you have curiosity about 
> things and are willing to research those things that interest you.

Heh. Does anybody else here think I should just get Jim to tell 
employers about me rather than me tell them? The way you talk, you make 
it sound as if I'm somehow worth having...

> You're still insisting on making the decision for the prospective 
> employer to not hire you.  That's THEIR decision to make and not yours!   
> I'm going to KEEP saying that until you demonstrate that you understand 
> it.

Well, I *did* apply anyway, didn't I?

>>> Don't let life happen to you - take control!
>> You say this as if it's actually physically possible.
> 
> It *is* possible.  I forget who it is who said "I've been very lucky in 
> my life - and it takes a lot of work to be as lucky as I have been", but 
> it's a very true statement.
> 
> Contrary to your apparent belief, you're not a hot air balloon being 
> pushed around by winds you cannot control.  If you don't take control of 
> your life, then someone else will, and you'll feel like you're not in 
> control.  It's your life, and you need to take control and make things 
> happen.

This is contrary to everything I have ever experienced in my life, so 
excuse me if I don't immediately believe it. No disrespect, but every 
single time I've tried to get somewhere in life, I have failed 
spectacularly. It seems that no matter how much energy I expend, nothing 
happens. So when people say to me "take control of life", my resonse is 
"dude, like, HOW?! It can't be done."

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message