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

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:48:39 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> Darren New wrote:
> 
>> If you want a new job, send three or four resumes a day for a month.
> 
> Simply discovering three or four jobs *per month* that I can actually
> apply for would be a significant feat, BTH.

You can apply for any job you might want.  You keep doing the employer's 
filtering for them by looking for reasons why you're not qualified and 
not applying.

If a job looks interesting, apply for it if it's something you feel you 
might like to do.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:28:32 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>> Hmm, thinking about it... back when I was trying for "programmer" this
>>> would be a non-starter. But given that I'm now considering sys admin
>>> instead - ah, wait, it's still going to be London, isn't it? Yeah,
>>> it'll be Central London, where all the heavy telco stuff is. Hmm.
>> 
>> Pay might make it worth it.  Wouldn't hurt to try, you can always
>> decide after an interview that you don't want the job.  Even then, it's
>> experience for applications and interviews.
> 
> Now you're talking some kind of sense...

I always *try* to talk sense. ;-)

> I might do this, just for a giggle. I think whatever I do it's going to
> happen after Christmas now, but this one might be worth looking at.

That's the way to look at it, exactly!

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 2-12-2009 22:03, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
  spelling alone.
> 
> [It's not really related to this discussion, but I have tried several 
> times to get Thunderbird's spell checker to work... Apparently it just 
> hates me or something.]

possibly, mine will check either Dutch, English (UK), or English (US).

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:41:14 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>>> Fact:  People get paid to write programs in Haskell.
>>> Yes. In the entire world, there are approximately 50 of them, I would
>>> estimate.
>> 
>> That estimate is based on what....?
> 
> The size of Galios, Well Typed and the Haskell division of MSRC, plus a
> few percent for random people and companies scattered around the world
> that might also be using it.

You might find it is a larger number than you think.

>> You could probably get a tech job with Nokia if you actually applied
>> for one.
> 
> Do *you* have any evidence whatsoever to back up such a bold claim?

I can guarantee you won't get a job there if you don't apply.

> They don't let just anybody work for Nokia, after all...

Right, they only let people who actually apply for jobs there work there.

>>> I would think my level of skill and experience would be a far bigger
>>> problem. It's not exactly like I live in some small village in the
>>> middle of nowhere...
>> 
>> What you've demonstrated here is a fair amount of skill.  Experience
>> comes with time.  Nobody leaves school or their first job with massive
>> amounts of experience.
> 
> Well Warp seems fairly convinced that I'm a rubbish programmer - and,
> AFAIK, he's the only person here who writes programs for a living. My
> total inability to spell properly is the stuff of legend. I'm pretty
> hopeless with mathematics too... What makes you think I have skills?

Warp is one person.  You've written code I couldn't have written with the 
skills I've developed over the years.

As for your writing - your spelling could be improved, yes - but so can 
mine, and I've been a professional writer.  Big F'ing Deal.  Nobody 
writes perfect copy 100% of the time.  I read your blog regularly, and I 
find it generally well-written and interesting.  I track it with Google 
Reader and every time you write a new post, I see it.

As for your maths skills, you understand a lot more about mathematics 
than I do, and I took a couple of calculus courses in pursuit of a 
engineering degree (a degree that I didn't earn because I couldn't hack 
the integral calculus class).

>> Bingo, that's my point.  Some people can't expect to be employed near
>> where they live because where they live may not be near the jobs
>> they're able to do.
> 
> Erm... like I say, I don't know of anybody who had to move just to find
> work.

But you also admit that you don't know that many people.  I do know 
people who have moved for work and who have had to move for work.

>> If you really want to be a programmer, then fix that point.  If staying
>> in MK is more important, then fix that point and get a job bagging
>> groceries & stocking shelves at the local Tesco or Safeway. 
>> Personally, I get the impression that you would be happier programming,
>> but it's YOUR life and not mine - so if the desire to stay in MK is
>> that strong for you, then stay there and find a job - any job - in the
>> area.
> 
> Amusingly - or perhaps not? - I hear Benny's teenage son who's still at
> school earns more money than me stacking shelves part-time at Tesco.
> Which is slightly ridiculous, considering I spent 6 years of my life in
> higher education...

Different jobs pay different rates; the manufacturing company I worked at 
I actually started working on the assembly line building the widgets they 
make.  Some of the people who worked the line had done so for 20+ years, 
and I learned very quickly that it was a mistake to think of it as 
unskilled labor - it's pretty highly skilled labor, and many of those 
people made as much money then (I'm talking about the late 80's here) as 
I make today doing what I do.  I was always amazed to drive into the 
parking lot and see a lot of very expensive cars and then realise that 
they weren't the office workers' vehicles, but the shop staff's 
vehicles.  Mercedes, BMW, etc - not uncommon in that parking lot at the 
time.

> Anyway, I'm not looking at stacking shelves just yet. I'm thinking about
> system administration - basically, doing a job like the one I currently
> do, but for money. Let's face it, at least I can walk into the room and
> say "I have *actually done this* for the last 7 years. I can prove I
> know how to do this."

That's a step in the right direction, to be sure.  So apply for sysadmin 
jobs in the area - don't concern yourself too much with what the company 
does - or pick a company that works in an industry you're interested in.  
Working in IT does give a lot of flexibility because systems admin work 
is pretty much the same everywhere, but it gives you an opportunity to 
learn something about the business you work for as well.  I did sysadmin 
work in companies that did manufacturing, retail, pharmacies, benefits 
administration, and a call centers (some of the jobs covered multiple 
areas; the benefits administration company operated a call center, so I 
got to learn about how those work).  I started each of those jobs with no 
prior experience in the industry.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>>>> Fact:  People get paid to write programs in Haskell.
>>>> Yes. In the entire world, there are approximately 50 of them, I would
>>>> estimate.
>>> That estimate is based on what....?
>> The size of Galios, Well Typed and the Haskell division of MSRC, plus a
>> few percent for random people and companies scattered around the world
>> that might also be using it.
> 
> You might find it is a larger number than you think.

I can't actually think of a real reliable way to get the real number, 
actually... Might be interesting.

>>> You could probably get a tech job with Nokia if you actually applied
>>> for one.
>> Do *you* have any evidence whatsoever to back up such a bold claim?
> 
> I can guarantee you won't get a job there if you don't apply.

This is self-evident. But that's not the statement you made. ;-)

>> They don't let just anybody work for Nokia, after all...
> 
> Right, they only let people who actually apply for jobs there work there.

Heh, that got a chuckle.

> You've written code I couldn't have written with the 
> skills I've developed over the years.
> 
> As for your writing - your spelling could be improved, yes - but so can 
> mine, and I've been a professional writer.  Big F'ing Deal.  Nobody 
> writes perfect copy 100% of the time.  I read your blog regularly, and I 
> find it generally well-written and interesting.  I track it with Google 
> Reader and every time you write a new post, I see it.
> 
> As for your maths skills, you understand a lot more about mathematics 
> than I do, and I took a couple of calculus courses in pursuit of a 
> engineering degree (a degree that I didn't earn because I couldn't hack 
> the integral calculus class).

I guess what it comes down to is that there isn't actually any objective 
way to determine how good I am at any of these things, so we're stuck 
with my subjective opinion. (And this varies depending on my mood...)

>> Erm... like I say, I don't know of anybody who had to move just to find
>> work.
> 
> But you also admit that you don't know that many people.  I do know 
> people who have moved for work and who have had to move for work.

Maybe it's different outside the UK or something? IDK.

>> Anyway, I'm not looking at stacking shelves just yet. I'm thinking about
>> system administration - basically, doing a job like the one I currently
>> do, but for money. Let's face it, at least I can walk into the room and
>> say "I have *actually done this* for the last 7 years. I can prove I
>> know how to do this."
> 
> That's a step in the right direction, to be sure.  So apply for sysadmin 
> jobs in the area - don't concern yourself too much with what the company 
> does - or pick a company that works in an industry you're interested in.  
> Working in IT does give a lot of flexibility because systems admin work 
> is pretty much the same everywhere, but it gives you an opportunity to 
> learn something about the business you work for as well.  I did sysadmin 
> work in companies that did manufacturing, retail, pharmacies, benefits 
> administration, and a call centers (some of the jobs covered multiple 
> areas; the benefits administration company operated a call center, so I 
> got to learn about how those work).  I started each of those jobs with no 
> prior experience in the industry.

Well, as I said, I think this will have to wait for the new year, but 
this is the next stage in my plan.

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

Post a reply to this message

>> 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

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:56:27 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>> You might find it is a larger number than you think.
> 
> I can't actually think of a real reliable way to get the real number,
> actually... Might be interesting.

There may not be a reliable way to get the real number.  Besides, the 
number of actual jobs doesn't matter that much - only the ones you apply 
for are really the ones that matter.

>>>> You could probably get a tech job with Nokia if you actually applied
>>>> for one.
>>> Do *you* have any evidence whatsoever to back up such a bold claim?
>> 
>> I can guarantee you won't get a job there if you don't apply.
> 
> This is self-evident. But that's not the statement you made. ;-)

Yes, I said you could probably get a job with them.  I believe that is a 
true statement - maybe in systems administration.  You won't know until 
you try - and even then, in the event they decline to hire you for that 
job, there's nothing that says you can't keep applying until they do hire 
you.  Like I said, it took me three interviews in three different 
departments before I got a job at Novell - and today I'm not doing what 
they originally hired me to do.

>>> They don't let just anybody work for Nokia, after all...
>> 
>> Right, they only let people who actually apply for jobs there work
>> there.
> 
> Heh, that got a chuckle.

Well, that's good - I was more or less aiming for a laugh there, while 
still making a serious point. :-)

>> You've written code I couldn't have written with the skills I've
>> developed over the years.
>> 
>> As for your writing - your spelling could be improved, yes - but so can
>> mine, and I've been a professional writer.  Big F'ing Deal.  Nobody
>> writes perfect copy 100% of the time.  I read your blog regularly, and
>> I find it generally well-written and interesting.  I track it with
>> Google Reader and every time you write a new post, I see it.
>> 
>> As for your maths skills, you understand a lot more about mathematics
>> than I do, and I took a couple of calculus courses in pursuit of a
>> engineering degree (a degree that I didn't earn because I couldn't hack
>> the integral calculus class).
> 
> I guess what it comes down to is that there isn't actually any objective
> way to determine how good I am at any of these things, so we're stuck
> with my subjective opinion. (And this varies depending on my mood...)

And I keep telling you that your subjective opinion of your own skills 
isn't important.  It's the prospective employer's subjective opinion that 
matters.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  Most people who have very 
deep knowledge have a hard time  understanding that they've got 
significant expertise, because they know it off the top of their heads 
and it seems so easy and intuitive that they assume anyone can learn it.  
I spent years thinking I was "nothing special" because I knew my subject 
matter (directory services) as well as some of the developers who wrote 
the code.  It seemed easy and intuitive to me, and that is something that 
can be demotivating.  Even today - maybe 5 years after I stopped working 
with the technology daily - I've probably forgotten more than most people 
ever learn about the technology.  I don't say that to brag, but I say 
that because I still don't really think of myself as an expert in that 
field, but I still have people come up to me at conferences and ask me 
about the technology, and I still can pull up answers.  And not just end 
users or system administrators, but sometimes still the engineering folks 
from India seek me out to ask my opinion on things they're working on.

It feels good and at the same time feels really strange, because it 
doesn't seem that difficult to me.  But I have learned over several years 
that the reason it's easy for me is because I've spent a LOT of time 
studying it, reading about it, and even reviewing code that implements it.

What you need to do is what I do when it comes to directory technology - 
which is that I state that I've got 'x' years experience working with it 
and have studied it extensively both as part of the job and on my own.  
Then I let them decide if my knowledge was what they were looking for.

That's how I got the job with Novell, in fact.  I was hired to teach 
about the technology, and I thought "I could probably do that, even 
though I've never taught in an adult classroom setting before"; I had to 
give a 10 minute presentation on a subject of my choosing (related to the 
job I was applying for, naturally) and was evaluated on my presentation 
skills.  I actually didn't do very well in the presentation (I had 
presented at conferences before, but that's very different from teaching 
a class with labs and whatnot), but they liked my knowledge and said they 
could get my presentation skills to where they needed to be.

The job description was a Certified Novell Instructor with strong 
eDirectory skills and a few years' teaching experience.  I met one of 
those three criteria and got the job.  I had the knowledge.  I had no 
certifications and no teaching experience to speak of (I remembered after 
I was hired that I had taught a couple of classes in college and had done 
some TA work during summer school when I was younger).

>>> Erm... like I say, I don't know of anybody who had to move just to
>>> find work.
>> 
>> But you also admit that you don't know that many people.  I do know
>> people who have moved for work and who have had to move for work.
> 
> Maybe it's different outside the UK or something? IDK.

I know people inside the UK who have moved for their jobs as well.  My 
point is it's not that unusual for it to happen and isn't something to be 
feared.  Is it a risk?  Sure.  But life is generally a series of risks.

>>> Anyway, I'm not looking at stacking shelves just yet. I'm thinking
>>> about system administration - basically, doing a job like the one I
>>> currently do, but for money. Let's face it, at least I can walk into
>>> the room and say "I have *actually done this* for the last 7 years. I
>>> can prove I know how to do this."
>> 
>> That's a step in the right direction, to be sure.  So apply for
>> sysadmin jobs in the area - don't concern yourself too much with what
>> the company does - or pick a company that works in an industry you're
>> interested in. Working in IT does give a lot of flexibility because
>> systems admin work is pretty much the same everywhere, but it gives you
>> an opportunity to learn something about the business you work for as
>> well.  I did sysadmin work in companies that did manufacturing, retail,
>> pharmacies, benefits administration, and a call centers (some of the
>> jobs covered multiple areas; the benefits administration company
>> operated a call center, so I got to learn about how those work).  I
>> started each of those jobs with no prior experience in the industry.
> 
> Well, as I said, I think this will have to wait for the new year, but
> this is the next stage in my plan.

It seems a reasonable step.  Doing more sysadmin work - especially in a 
team environment (which I can tell you is great for being able to take 
time off - something very hard to do when you're the only one doing the 
work) is a good stepping stone into other areas.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:03:49 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> My total inability to spell properly is the stuff of legend.
>> 
>> Mainly because you forget to use and/or install a spelling checker.
>> Again writing has many more sides than spelling alone.
> 
> [It's not really related to this discussion, but I have tried several
> times to get Thunderbird's spell checker to work... Apparently it just
> hates me or something.]

You could ask for help.  I'm sure there's someone here who uses it who 
might be able to give you some tips.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:19:36 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> 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...

Have you looked at acedemia for something like this?  But what little 
I've read about fractals, that type of maths comes in handy with 
rendering realistic organics, so that might be an area where you could 
make some cash - someplace that does visual effects.

>> 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.

You have to assume that everyone is looking for advantages to use it - 
doing things the way the company expects (or not even expects, but tells 
you to do it) puts you at a disadvantage.

>>> 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. 

I hate to say it, but there you go. :/

> 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.

That's good, and of course it can take time, especially in a down economy 
- just don't give up and look for those advantages.

>> 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.

Well, I've already given you some ideas - don't deal with recruiters who 
won't give you the company contact info - deal with the companies 
directly.  Things like that help.

> 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.

Well, I don't think it's beyond your capabilities, but it also doesn't 
ever really happen that way - not in larger companies, anyways.  I did it 
once about 18 years ago, and that was moving from assembly line work to 
the MIS department (so it wasn't walking into a business I had never been 
in before).

>> 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.

Well, you can ask here for ideas of what to try.  As for motivation in 
the face of continued rejection, all I can say is to think about how much 
you dislike your current boss/job/coworkers and let that motivate you to 
keep trying.

>>> 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 need to know what the job entails, but that's really all I tend to 
read into job descriptions myself.  You do need to know if you're 
applying for a job to bus tables or to empty the trash, but beyond that, 
if it sounds interesting, there's nothing to lose.

>> 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...

Rarely if ever happens, and if it does, just thank them for calling to 
let you know that they're not interested in you as an applicant and ask 
them to keep you in mind if a better fit does apply.

Then hang up the phone and laugh at what an asshole they are for not even 
bothering to find out more about you as a candidate, and consider 
yourself lucky to have not been offered a job working for people who 
would behave so dickishly towards someone they know nothing about.

>> 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.

And from the job you've gained some experience, which helps you with the 
next job.

>> 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.

It takes persistence and sometimes takes trying a number of different 
companies.  It also takes varying your approach if an approach you're 
using doesn't seem to be working.  Scott was right about tailoring your 
CV for a particular position - that does help.  It doesn't have to be 
completely new, but (for example) adjusting the objective to better fit 
the job you're applying for can be helpful.

>>>> 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.

People are motivated to apply for different reasons.  Some apply because 
it lets them continue collecting unemployment benefits - and they have no 
interest in actually getting the job.  You have to show interest in the 
position and an aptitude (in their judgment, not yours) for the job.

>> 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.

Well, like I said in another post written earlier, the job that got me in 
at Novell I feel I was about 33% qualified for (one requirement out of 
three).  But I got the job.

>> 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

That would be a good idea. :-)

>> 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?

It all depends on the job requirements (CNI isn't Cisco, BTW, it's a 
Novell instructor certification - and yes, I got hired to teach Novell 
classes even though I didn't have the *required* certification).

>>>> 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...

Well, I have some experience in self-marketing.  That is what a CV is - a 
marketing document.  I also happen to believe that you do have real 
skills and would be an asset to anyone who hired you.  I see a lot of 
potential in your abilities that you don't seem to see in yourself, and 
there is a certain amount of moulding that could be done to really make 
you shine.  If I was in a hiring position and had something that I felt 
you could do, I'd be making a suggestion for you to apply for it; sadly, 
Novell is not in a position to hire right now, and our development and 
sysadmin jobs aren't in the UK.  I've been keeping an eye out, but I 
don't hear a lot about jobs in the UK because I'm not there.

If you were willing to be more mobile, that would make it easier for me 
to keep an eye open for something that you might find interesting.

>> 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?

Yes, you have at times applied.  But you didn't follow up the way I would 
have done, and that's one significant difference.  A big part of the 
reason is that you don't know how because you haven't had to do that kind 
of follow-up before.  Not your fault, but you need to be willing to learn 
how.

>>>> 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."

I can understand why you feel the way you do; I did for many years 
myself.  It takes persistence to push past it, and it also (in my 
experience) means not taking life so seriously.  Someone doesn't call you 
back - so what?  (Yes, I know how hard that is - BTDTGTTS).

At the same time, though, you've done a lot in the past few years (that 
I've seen up here) that has expanded your horizons; you've been skiing 
more (it seems); you took up dance classes and really seem to enjoy them 
immensely.  I've seen you fight back in discussions up here (including a 
couple of times where I provoked you into a pretty strong response - and 
I have to say I was *impressed* with how well you held your ground in 
those instances), which is something you hadn't done before.  You're 
learning to stand up for yourself, and that's a GOOD thing.

Applying that in an online forum is a good first step.  Applying it in 
'meatspace' is the next step.  I'm fairly certain you can do it 
successfully, probably in your place of employ - like the next time 
someone demands something from you that you judge to be unreasonable; 
telling them to "do it themselves" if it's so easy that they judge you 
should be able to do it in no time at all when in fact the request is 
much more complex than they understand.  Might they complain to your 
boss?  Probably.  Might your boss have words with you about it?  You can 
almost certainly count on it.  But I've seen you stand up here to similar 
criticism and hold your own very well - and I'm sure you could explain to 
your boss that the user was giving you attitude about how you do your job 
with no understanding of what that actually entails or of what their 
request was - and they "pushed me past my limit", so rather than argue 
with them, you told them to do it themselves and walked away from it to 
cool off.

Then ask your boss how you should deal with unreasonable demands from end 
users - what you should do when they ask for something that's ridiculous 
or impossible.  They have their areas of expertise, and you have yours.  
You don't tell them how to run a centrifuge, and they shouldn't tell you 
how to fix their workstation - because if they know how to fix it, then 
they damned well SHOULD fix it themselves.  (Maybe not in those words, 
but you get my meaning).

Jim

Post a reply to this message