|
 |
On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:36:50 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> 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.
That's a question of familiarity.
>> 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.
The other question is how badly you want it. If you want it badly
enough, you'll do what it takes to get it and to get noticed over the
other candidates applying.
> 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.
> 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.
Something with a broader base, certainly.
>> 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...)
Sure, you don't want to apply for jobs, but you must like your current
job enough that it's not motivating you to apply for jobs. Like I said
(and you agreed with above), jobs don't just fall in your lap - you have
to DO something to get them, which includes applying for them and
interviewing for them.
> 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?
Use a website that gives you more information about the company you're
applying for, for one thing. Learn where the offices are for the company,
find some people who work there (like in the HR department) and ask them
how to get noticed.
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.
> 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?
Tell them "you've been working on it for a month, I would like more news
than that". What more can you do? Don't talk to recruiters, talk to
employers directly. That would be a good start. The recruiter is doing
a job in order to make money, and if there's nothing in it for them, then
they're not going to work for you to find that perfect job for you. They
are a filter for the employer, so you need to work around the filter, not
through it.
>> 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.
Tell me what you've done in the last 30 days, then, that hasn't involved
sitting and waiting for someone to call you with that perfect job.
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. 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.
>> 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
Very often that *is* the case, yes. The person writing the requirements
for the job very often has no idea what the requirements of the job
really are. Very often they are seriously *overstated* and in some cases
are completely unrealistic.
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.
>> 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.
It depends on how badly they need to fill the position as well. If a job
lists 3 years' experience and you have one, it probably would still be
worth applying for it. Even with 6 months' experience it might be worth
applying for if your 6 months' experience is viewed as good quality (not
by you, by *them* - remember what I've said before, let the prospective
employer make that decision - it's theirs to make). If you come across
as a fast learner (and you are, it seems to me), then that may be just
what they're looking for. I don't think *anyone* ever fits a job
description 100% - it's a negotiation based on their needs and your
skills.
> 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.
You need to work around the filter, again. Now, a background in finance
is something you don't appear to have, so that may not be a good fit.
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 might as well go apply to be the CEO of Sony BMG. I'd have as much
> chance of success.
You have a 0% chance of success for either position if you never apply
for it!
> The fact of the matter is, there are some jobs that you're not qualified
> for. And for me, this is one of them.
Maybe this one is, maybe it isn't. Surely that's for the prospective
employer to decide.
>> 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. 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.
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?
Listen to the voice of experience - there is a lot of experience in the
group here, but you are stuck on believing that your perceptions are
correct, when there are a bunch of us who have repeatedly told you that
your perceptions are not correct.
>> 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.
Wrong. I've seen it happen time and time again where a less qualified
individual is hired over a more qualified individual, and there are many
reasons that this happens:
1. Pay scale: the more qualified person wants more money than the
employer is willing to pay)
2. Team fit: The more qualified person isn't a good fit with the team -
personality clashes can become apparent during an interview - especially
with a team-based interview. Sometimes people just don't 'click' no
matter how good they are.
3. Bad timing: Sometimes the more qualified candidate isn't available
at the time the employer needs them. It happens, I've seen it happen
several times.
4. Lack of good references: This can be related to #2, but a more
qualified candidate might be passed over because a reference check didn't
pan out well. That reference might help determine that as good as the
individual is, they won't work well in the team environment.
5. Lack of specific credentials: This one happened to me once; I
applied for a position with Iomega many years ago, and the hiring manager
was stuck on the fact that I did not hold a Novell certification. I had
written (and had published) a book that demonstrated expertise in the
field, and at the time was one of about 30 people in the world who
volunteered to support the products online; Novell thought my expertise
was sufficient to trust me to support other customers, but the Iomega
hiring manager didn't feel that I was a good fit because I didn't have
the letters "CNE" after my name. Honestly, if they had offered the
position, I probably would've turned it down when it became apparent that
they valued the certification credentials more than actual experience and
expertise.
>> 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.
Sure, some skills are necessary. For a programming job, programming
skills are necessary. You have those.
>> 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. I
work with people who are like that, and I work with people who are the
exact opposite of that - no curiosity, no willingness to learn new
skills. The latter, regardless of their formal education, usually end up
getting laid off - their lack of motivation puts them in a position of
not doing things that make the employer/employee relationship beneficial
enough to the employer.
>>> 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?
And did you follow up on the application? Or did you submit a CV and
then wait to hear back from them, and then give up if/when you didn't
hear back from them?
>> 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".
"Such as?" - did you ask that? What was their answer?
>> 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.
See above for the reasons why a more qualified candidate might not get
the job.
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.
>>> 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.
That is their choice to make AND NOT YOURS. Apply for it. You've got
nothing to lose and everything to gain.
>>> 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.
Did you follow up to that asking them to keep your CV on file and to let
you know/consider you for other positions that might be a better fit?
> (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.
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.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
null> wrote: