 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hooookay then... So I just decided that I would *finally* apply for a
job with HMGCC. I've been talking about it for long enough!
However, one does not simply email a CV to them. This is HMG, after all!
You must fill in a long, complex online application form. And some of
the fields really aren't very clearly labelled.
"If you are British or naturalised, please state the certificate number:"
Er... what?
Anyway, they want to know some pretty serious stuff - where were you
born, have you been outside the country in the last 10 years, do you
have a girlfriend, what is your national insurance number, etc. It's
taken ages just to fill out all the information.
After all that, it seems I can't actually apply anyway!
An application is not processed until ALL fields have been completed.
This causes a problem for me on two counts.
First, I don't have any references - and they want two of 'em. I *would*
have put my boss, but he recently left the company. I would have put our
site manager, but he recently left too. The new management team can't
even remember my name. No point having them for references! I might also
have said my uni lecturers - you know, if the uni hadn't shut down as
soon as I graduated...
Second, they have a selection of questions of the form "describe a time
when you did X". Mostly for values of X where the set of suitable
examples is empty. o_O
Actually, I'd just like to walk through this set, because it seems to be
a popular sort of thing for employers to ask...
1. Describe a time when you worked with others to solve a complex problem.
Um... OK. What do you say to this one? I mean, if you happen to work for
a company that designs complex products and you're on the design team,
this should be a cakewalk. But otherwise? I mean, when was the last time
YOU solved a complex problem? (Never mind with other people.)
Suffice it to say, I can't think of a single example for this. I've
never *met* anybody (apart from me) who knows the difference between a
Fourier transform and a Laplace transform. Any remotely complex problems
I might have solved have been solved by me and me alone.
2. Please describe an example of when you delivered a high quality piece
of work that you were proud of.
Hmm, this is hard. Usually when I deliver something, all I can think
about is how badly it sucks and how I should have done much better...
but maybe I can find something for this one.
3. Give an example of when you tacked an unfamiliar problem or task, and
how you learned something new.
Do I tell them about the time I spent 2 days writing out the binomial
expansions of powers up to 9 by longhand algebra and thereby derived a
special case of the binomial theorum from first principles? Or should I
write something about the time when I tried to build a parser for my
computer-aided algebra system, and ended up inventing Dijkstra's
shunting algorithm? Either way, I highly doubt anybody will be
impressed. After all, reinventing obscure mathematics hardly counts as
"solving" a "problem"...
4. Please describe a time when you took on a task that illustrates your
active interest in this area of work and allowed you to develop new skills.
Uuuhhhh... Well I can tell you all mannar of things I've learned out of
pure curiosity. But things I learned because of attempting to perform a
specific "task"?
...nope, I'm comming up blank here...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 3. Give an example of when you tacked an unfamiliar problem or task, and
> how you learned something new.
Hey, I got one:
"Filling out this application form was a new and unusual task for me. I
don't often sit back and review my accomplishments from a high level. By
doing this, I have learned something new: I am actually wildly
under-qualified for this role. Sorry to have wasted your time."
I hypothesize that this will NOT increase my changes of employment. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Second, they have a selection of questions of the form "describe a time
> when you did X". Mostly for values of X where the set of suitable
> examples is empty. o_O
You do know that 99% of applicants lie through their teeth with questions
like this?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:487f6e0c@news.povray.org...
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > Second, they have a selection of questions of the form "describe a time
> > when you did X". Mostly for values of X where the set of suitable
> > examples is empty. o_O
>
> You do know that 99% of applicants lie through their teeth with
questions
> like this?
>
And probably half or so lie on the rest as well.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> You do know that 99% of applicants lie through their teeth with questions
> like this?
...ah. Suddenly a whole bunch of things make sense. Like that "SQL test"
that nobody who had completed chapter 1 of a basic SQL introduction
could possibly have failed.
Myself, being a honest and truthful person, I always strive to ensure I
don't in any way exaggerate my actual capabilities or mislead people in
any way. I guess it never occurred to me that other applicants are not
nearly so ethical.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Myself, being a honest and truthful person, I always strive to ensure I
> don't in any way exaggerate my actual capabilities or mislead people in
> any way. I guess it never occurred to me that other applicants are not
> nearly so ethical.
It's a sad world. Employers can't appreciate honesty because they have
no means of knowing who is lying and who is being honest, especially when
there may be hundreds of applications. Usually only two types of people
get hired: The ones who are most competent, and the ones who can lie most
convincingly about their own competence. The situation is aggravated if
the person making the interview doesn't know the subject matter very well
himself (which is often the case with bosses, as you might know).
Thus people who are fairly competent but not brilliant, and who are
honest by principle, get discriminated precisely because of their honesty.
Getting a job is a competition, and it can get pretty ugly, and honest
naive people are usually going to lose.
The usual recommendation for job interviews is to try to smartly hide
your weaknesses and concentrate on your strong points, while trying to
avoid outright lying. (After all, if you get caught lying, that may
backfire badly.) It can be an art.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:38:57 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>Second, they have a selection of questions of the form "describe a time
>when you did X". Mostly for values of X where the set of suitable
>examples is empty. o_O
If you weren't seriously applying, it'd be fun to come up with some totally outlandish
stories as answers to each question, just to see if you get a response.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-Jul-08 17:38, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Hooookay then... So I just decided that I would *finally* apply for a
> job with HMGCC. I've been talking about it for long enough!
>
> However, one does not simply email a CV to them. This is HMG, after all!
> You must fill in a long, complex online application form. And some of
> the fields really aren't very clearly labelled.
>
> "If you are British or naturalised, please state the certificate number:"
>
> Er... what?
>
> Anyway, they want to know some pretty serious stuff - where were you
> born, have you been outside the country in the last 10 years, do you
> have a girlfriend,
And what if you are gay or, worse, a girl?
> what is your national insurance number, etc. It's
> taken ages just to fill out all the information.
>
> After all that, it seems I can't actually apply anyway!
>
> An application is not processed until ALL fields have been completed.
> This causes a problem for me on two counts.
>
> First, I don't have any references - and they want two of 'em. I *would*
> have put my boss, but he recently left the company. I would have put our
> site manager, but he recently left too. The new management team can't
> even remember my name. No point having them for references! I might also
> have said my uni lecturers - you know, if the uni hadn't shut down as
> soon as I graduated...
Unless your boss and the site manager have been fired for gross
incompetence or are dead they could still serve as a reference, I would
think.
>
> Second, they have a selection of questions of the form "describe a time
> when you did X". Mostly for values of X where the set of suitable
> examples is empty. o_O
>
> Actually, I'd just like to walk through this set, because it seems to be
> a popular sort of thing for employers to ask...
>
>
>
> 1. Describe a time when you worked with others to solve a complex problem.
>
> Um... OK. What do you say to this one? I mean, if you happen to work for
> a company that designs complex products and you're on the design team,
> this should be a cakewalk. But otherwise? I mean, when was the last time
> YOU solved a complex problem? (Never mind with other people.)
>
> Suffice it to say, I can't think of a single example for this. I've
> never *met* anybody (apart from me) who knows the difference between a
> Fourier transform and a Laplace transform. Any remotely complex problems
> I might have solved have been solved by me and me alone.
There must be examples of you and your boss or the IT in the US trying
to solve the internet problems. Even designing the network in your new
building may be an example. E-mailing counts as 'working together' in
this context
>
>
> 2. Please describe an example of when you delivered a high quality piece
> of work that you were proud of.
>
> Hmm, this is hard. Usually when I deliver something, all I can think
> about is how badly it sucks and how I should have done much better...
> but maybe I can find something for this one.
What about the procedures document you had written? Even if you are
psychologically unable to be proud on something you did, this is the
sort of things they want to hear.
>
> 3. Give an example of when you tacked an unfamiliar problem or task, and
> how you learned something new.
>
> Do I tell them about the time I spent 2 days writing out the binomial
> expansions of powers up to 9 by longhand algebra and thereby derived a
> special case of the binomial theorem from first principles? Or should I
> write something about the time when I tried to build a parser for my
> computer-aided algebra system, and ended up inventing Dijkstra's
> shunting algorithm? Either way, I highly doubt anybody will be
> impressed. After all, reinventing obscure mathematics hardly counts as
> "solving" a "problem"...
It does. The problem to solve is how to implement it. Many of the things
you did in Haskell will neatly fit in this category.
>
> 4. Please describe a time when you took on a task that illustrates your
> active interest in this area of work and allowed you to develop new skills.
>
> Uuuhhhh... Well I can tell you all manner of things I've learned out of
> pure curiosity. But things I learned because of attempting to perform a
> specific "task"?
>
> ...nope, I'm coming up blank here...
More Haskell here. Or your non-linear equations, point to Zazzle as proof.
Are there no simple to answer questions like: 'are you the mascot of an
internet society' or 'are you the subject of a webcomic'?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Anyway, they want to know some pretty serious stuff - where were you
>> born, have you been outside the country in the last 10 years, do you
>> have a girlfriend,
>
> And what if you are gay or, worse, a girl?
Ooo, that would probably *incrase* your changes of being hired - they
have to hire a certain percentage of "minority groups" to prove that
they are in fact an "equal opportunities employer". (I'm not making this
up. Several questions are explicitly marked as being for this purpose.)
> Unless your boss and the site manager have been fired for gross
> incompetence or are dead they could still serve as a reference, I would
> think.
Not if you can't contact them, no.
> There must be examples of you and your boss or the IT in the US trying
> to solve the internet problems. Even designing the network in your new
> building may be an example. E-mailing counts as 'working together' in
> this context
There probably *should* be examples of us working together, but sadly
there isn't. They tend to regard me as just being the tea boy. The
network in the new building is *not* the design I came up with. I had a
plan written and everything, and then they showed up and just did
something completely different, and I had to reverse engineer to find
out exactly what they did. I'm still not 100% sure.
Similarly, fault finding usually consists of them saying "have you done
X?" [when I already told them I have], and then they say "OK, hold on,
we'll look at it". And maybe at some point they come back with an
answer. Not much "working together" actually happens.
I could possibly mention the change-over of our firewall. That's about
the most "interactive" thing we ever did. But replacing one box with
another one hardly counts as a "complex problem", which is what the
question demands.
The notes say it doesn't have to be a work-related example, but you know
what *my* social life looks like...!
>> 2. Please describe an example of when you delivered a high quality
>> piece of work that you were proud of.
>
> What about the procedures document you had written? Even if you are
> psychologically unable to be proud on something you did, this is the
> sort of things they want to hear.
Good point. Several external auditors have reputedly "liked" these. And
I was quite pleased at having replaced an ad hoc, weakly structured
document with something that has a precise structure and is convinient
to read for the target audience [external auditors].
>> After all, reinventing obscure mathematics hardly counts as
>> "solving" a "problem"...
>
> It does. The problem to solve is how to implement it. Many of the things
> you did in Haskell will neatly fit in this category.
Most of my Haskell stuff I did from reading books. But perhaps "I
learned Haskell" would count as an "unusual task" where I "learned
something new" (i.e., a radically different way of seeing computer
programs). That seems like stretching things a little though...
>> 4. Please describe a time when you took on a task that illustrates
>> your active interest in this area of work and allowed you to develop
>> new skills.
>>
>> Uuuhhhh... Well I can tell you all manner of things I've learned out
>> of pure curiosity. But things I learned because of attempting to
>> perform a specific "task"?
>
> More Haskell here. Or your non-linear equations, point to Zazzle as proof.
Or that time I learned PostScript in my lunch break just because I was
so bored that day.
However, when you write "I once learned to program in PostScript in my
lunch break because I was really bored that day", it doesn't sound all
that good.
Again, it asks for a specific *task* where you learned something new.
Doing something to stave off boredom isn't a "task".
> Are there no simple to answer questions like: 'are you the mascot of an
> internet society' or 'are you the subject of a webcomic'?
LMAO! Damn, if only *those* could be job requirements...
[Actually, they probably are. But what the hell is the job??]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kyle wrote:
> If you weren't seriously applying, it'd be fun to come up with some totally
outlandish stories as answers to each question, just to see if you get a response.
Mmm, I like your thinking. ;-)
Of course, since I'm applying to work for Her Majesty's Government, this
is probably a Very Bad Idea. But hey, if you guys would like to try
posting some potential answers here, maybe we could all have a giggle?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Ooo, that would probably *incrase* your changes of being hired - they
> have to hire a certain percentage of "minority groups" to prove that
> they are in fact an "equal opportunities employer". (I'm not making this
> up. Several questions are explicitly marked as being for this purpose.)
That's one of the curious symptoms of the modern western hypercorrectism:
You have to discriminate in order to be an "equal opportunity" firm. Quite
ironically, "equal opportunity" is the politically correct term for "we
choose some of our employees based on ethnicity and other irrelevant
details" (which, at the same time, is the definition of racism).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That's one of the curious symptoms of the modern western hypercorrectism:
> You have to discriminate in order to be an "equal opportunity" firm. Quite
> ironically, "equal opportunity" is the politically correct term for "we
> choose some of our employees based on ethnicity and other irrelevant
> details" (which, at the same time, is the definition of racism).
Indeed, to be truly equal opportunity an employer should *totally
disregard* data such as race or gender.
The faulty thinking appears to be "if you have more employees of type X
than of type Y then you must be discriminating against people of type
Y". As opposed to, say,
- "There are fewer people of type Y applying to work for you."
- "There are fewer people of type Y who possess the necessary skills."
- "People of type Y tend not to be interested in your type of work."
- "There are fewer people of type Y living in this area."
...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Indeed, to be truly equal opportunity an employer should *totally
> disregard* data such as race or gender.
But that's bad from the PC point of view because then the hired people
would be talented, educated people who have practiced their profession
also as a hobby most of their lives, and people who present all those
qualities usually fall into a rather narrow demographic. Thus if you hire
only the most competent and talented people you are hiring only from a
narrow demographic and thus you are "discriminating".
If I'm not mistaken, at many parts of the US the situation has gone
almost completely out of hand. So much that, for example, employers are
actually afraid of firing anyone who is not a heterosexual white male,
no matter how incompetent they are and how much damage they are doing
to the company. The rationale is that keeping a few destructive employees
costs the company less money than going through the discrimination
lawsuits.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:487fa85a@news.povray.org...
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > Ooo, that would probably *incrase* your changes of being hired - they
> > have to hire a certain percentage of "minority groups" to prove that
> > they are in fact an "equal opportunities employer". (I'm not making this
> > up. Several questions are explicitly marked as being for this purpose.)
>
> That's one of the curious symptoms of the modern western
hypercorrectism:
> You have to discriminate in order to be an "equal opportunity" firm. Quite
> ironically, "equal opportunity" is the politically correct term for "we
> choose some of our employees based on ethnicity and other irrelevant
> details" (which, at the same time, is the definition of racism).
>
If you want really messed up, try South Africa.
It is illegal, forbidden by our constitution, to discriminate against anyone
on the basis of skin colour, gender, religion, sexual preference or
nationality.
It is a requirement of the labour law that all companies employing more than
50 people, have an affirmative action employment policy, whereby jobs are
given by preference to 'previously disadvantaged individuals'
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-Jul-08 22:09, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> Are there no simple to answer questions like: 'are you the mascot of
>> an internet society' or 'are you the subject of a webcomic'?
>
> LMAO! Damn, if only *those* could be job requirements...
>
> [Actually, they probably are. But what the hell is the job??]
>
IT guy in a blood testing factory in MK?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-Jul-08 22:48, Gail Shaw wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:487fa85a@news.povray.org...
>> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> Ooo, that would probably *incrase* your changes of being hired - they
>>> have to hire a certain percentage of "minority groups" to prove that
>>> they are in fact an "equal opportunities employer". (I'm not making this
>>> up. Several questions are explicitly marked as being for this purpose.)
>> That's one of the curious symptoms of the modern western
> hypercorrectism:
>> You have to discriminate in order to be an "equal opportunity" firm. Quite
>> ironically, "equal opportunity" is the politically correct term for "we
>> choose some of our employees based on ethnicity and other irrelevant
>> details" (which, at the same time, is the definition of racism).
>>
>
> If you want really messed up, try South Africa.
>
> It is illegal, forbidden by our constitution, to discriminate against anyone
> on the basis of skin colour, gender, religion, sexual preference or
> nationality.
> It is a requirement of the labour law that all companies employing more than
> 50 people, have an affirmative action employment policy, whereby jobs are
> given by preference to 'previously disadvantaged individuals'
>
If such a policy is in place, it becomes relatively less easy for a
white guy to find a job. So when it is in place for some time...
Probably does not work that way.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> If you want really messed up, try South Africa.
> It is illegal, forbidden by our constitution, to discriminate against anyone
> on the basis of skin colour, gender, religion, sexual preference or
> nationality.
> It is a requirement of the labour law that all companies employing more than
> 50 people, have an affirmative action employment policy, whereby jobs are
> given by preference to 'previously disadvantaged individuals'
It sounds a bit like the constitution of Finland: A lot of nice words
which mean absolutely nothing in practice.
(Unlike in the US (if I'm not mistaken), the constitution in Finland is
not an actual law. You can't "break" the constitution. Criminal law has
no concept of "breaking the constitution", and no sentences are ever given
for doing something unconstitutional. Unlike in the US, constitution is not
really something you can plead to (eg. you don't "plead the fifth" or
anything like that here).
In theory the constitution limits what can be passed as law, but in
practice many laws go against the constitution. OTOH, the constitution
doesn't prohibit that, as its wording is basically "this is allowed unless
prohibited by a law". Of course this is an absolute null statement.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> (Unlike in the US (if I'm not mistaken), the constitution in Finland is
> not an actual law.
Yes. In the US, the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land." After
that is federal laws, then state constitutions, then state laws.
(Actually, I'm pretty sure individual federal laws supposedly trump
state constitutions, but I'm not sure.)
On the other hand, the only way the federal constitution is actually
used is to invalidate particular other laws. Since most of the
constitution is stuff along the lines of either "Congress is authorized
to do X" or "Congress is not authorized to regulate Y", one gets a
constitutional decision by doing Y, getting arrested for it, then
arguing that Congress shouldn't be allowed to regulate Y in the first
place. It's a fairly painful process.
> Unlike in the US, constitution is not
> really something you can plead to (eg. you don't "plead the fifth" or
> anything like that here).
I think that's more TV. What one really says is "I refuse to answer on
the grounds it may incriminate me." Now, if the judge makes you answer
anyway, you then go thru the whole appeal bit again and show how the
judge did something the constitution said he shouldn't, etc.
> In theory the constitution limits what can be passed as law,
There are arguments in the US also that the Constitution shouldn't limit
what can be passed as a law, as the constitution doesn't actually
include instructions for how to invalidate laws that were passed in
spite of the constitution saying they're OK. Personally, I can't imagine
how else you'd expect it to work effectively, given that at this point
our President and his cronies aren't even listening to Congress let
alone old pieces of paper.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > In theory the constitution limits what can be passed as law,
> There are arguments in the US also that the Constitution shouldn't limit
> what can be passed as a law
The Finnish government has a board of representatives (or something like
that) which job is to ensure that the constitution is upheld when voting
for new laws. Whenever a law touches something which may be seen as
constitutionally dubious, this board is consulted and they give their
official statement about the constitutionality of the law. I don't know
how many laws they have actually stopped from being passed, but I suppose
they might have done so.
OTOH, many laws have been passed which feel constitutionally extremely
dubious (eg. regarding freedom of speech) which this board has nevertheless
given a thumbs up. Sometimes I seriously doubt the impartiality of the
board.
But OTOH, as I already said in my previous post, the Finnish constitution
is full of null statements anyways, so while a law might not conform to
the spirit of the constitution it may still conform to its letter.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> In theory the constitution limits what can be passed as law,
>
>> There are arguments in the US also that the Constitution shouldn't limit
>> what can be passed as a law
>
> The Finnish government has a board of representatives (or something like
> that) which job is to ensure that the constitution is upheld when voting
> for new laws. Whenever a law touches something which may be seen as
> constitutionally dubious, this board is consulted and they give their
> official statement about the constitutionality of the law. I don't know
> how many laws they have actually stopped from being passed, but I suppose
> they might have done so.
>
That is something that would be interesting to see in the US system but,
since we can't even decide if the constitutional amendments restrict
just the federal government or the states as well, would run into a lot
of gray areas.
In effect, that is what the Supreme Court does, but they do not review
the law until after it has been enforced.
> OTOH, many laws have been passed which feel constitutionally extremely
> dubious (eg. regarding freedom of speech) which this board has nevertheless
> given a thumbs up. Sometimes I seriously doubt the impartiality of the
> board.
>
Is there a process to over rule this groups opinion of the law, or is it
absolute?
> But OTOH, as I already said in my previous post, the Finnish constitution
> is full of null statements anyways, so while a law might not conform to
> the spirit of the constitution it may still conform to its letter.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> However, one does not simply email a CV to them. This is HMG, after all!
> You must fill in a long, complex online application form. And some of the
> fields really aren't very clearly labelled.
And then watch out, they often interview someone who knows you, just to
check certain things...
> Any remotely complex problems I might have solved have been solved by me
> and me alone.
Scale back a bit on your definition of "complex" then. How about "the most
complex problem that you have solved with the aid of others"? You must have
done something where you needed to ask someone else for advice/help - or
where you provided assistance to some other people working on a larger
problem?
> Or should I write something about the time when I tried to build a parser
> for my computer-aided algebra system, and ended up inventing Dijkstra's
> shunting algorithm?
Yes, I suspect they would like that. They are after evidence, evidence that
you would be a useful person working for them. Things like that show that
even though your current job doesn't require it, you are interested enough
in such concepts to spend time on them.
> 4. Please describe a time when you took on a task that illustrates your
> active interest in this area of work and allowed you to develop new
> skills.
>
> Uuuhhhh... Well I can tell you all mannar of things I've learned out of
> pure curiosity. But things I learned because of attempting to perform a
> specific "task"?
Same sort of thing as the previous answer would do. But I guess it should
try to be related to whatever job you are applying for. I'm sure you can
wangle something.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Usually only two types of people
> get hired:
Get *interviewed*, not hired ;-)
Any company with half an ounce of skill in interviewed will weed out the
people who just made up stuff.
We had exactly that experience recently. Some guy said he had lots of
experience with ASIC design for graphics controllers, and working with
different customers in Europe. Once we started pushing him on the technical
details it turned out he really had just been "overseeing" the design and
not actually done anything himself. In fact, he could have just been making
it all up. In the end we finally asked him this question:
"When was the last time you used an oscilloscope?"
"Never"
"OK, thanks for coming along today, we'll let you know"
I don't know why people even bother.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
>> If you want really messed up, try South Africa.
>
>> It is illegal, forbidden by our constitution, to discriminate against anyone
>> on the basis of skin colour, gender, religion, sexual preference or
>> nationality.
>> It is a requirement of the labour law that all companies employing more than
>> 50 people, have an affirmative action employment policy, whereby jobs are
>> given by preference to 'previously disadvantaged individuals'
>
> It sounds a bit like the constitution of Finland: A lot of nice words
> which mean absolutely nothing in practice.
>
> (Unlike in the US (if I'm not mistaken), the constitution in Finland is
> not an actual law. You can't "break" the constitution. Criminal law has
> no concept of "breaking the constitution", and no sentences are ever given
> for doing something unconstitutional. Unlike in the US, constitution is not
> really something you can plead to (eg. you don't "plead the fifth" or
> anything like that here).
> In theory the constitution limits what can be passed as law, but in
> practice many laws go against the constitution. OTOH, the constitution
> doesn't prohibit that, as its wording is basically "this is allowed unless
> prohibited by a law". Of course this is an absolute null statement.)
>
No one 'breaks' the constitution of the USA.
All it sets out, initially, is what each part of the government is
allowed to do and how they can accomplish it. Congress is consisted of
these people and does this stuff in this manner, while the President is
this person who is elected somehow and can do this other stuff.
The first 10 amendments to the constitution actually went further, and
forbid certain kinds of laws from being created. Again, though, the
Congress and President do not 'break' the constitution by making laws
like that, because they simply lack the authority to. The law gets
enforced, someone appeals, the Supreme Court rules the law
unconstitutional, and the law goes away.*
The fun parts are the 10th amendment, that said any power not given to
the Federal government and not forbidden to the states are reserved to
the State, and the 14th amendment, which made everyone born in the USA a
citizen and guaranteed them the same rights. Why? Well, the 10th is
skirted by calling just about anything 'interstate commerce'. Grow grain
to feed your own farm animals? Congress can regulate that, because the
grain you might be buying could come from other states. The other way is
to remove federal funding from states that do not enact certain laws:
"Do this or your tax dollars go some place else." And while the 14th
says that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."** it has
been used to push other laws on the States. Whether that's a good or bad
thing depends on if you see the country as the USA or at the United
States of America. It is far from clear, either way.
*that's the way it's supposed to work, anyways.
**"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:38:57 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull>
did spake, saying:
> 1. Describe a time when you worked with others to solve a complex
> problem.
"Would it be feasible to render an Iterated Function System image using a
GPU?" equals
'An international co-operative effort to do blah for blah to solve blah.'
> 2. Please describe an example of when you delivered a high quality piece
> of work that you were proud of.
How about all the time spent in tracking down problems, doesn't ask that
you have to have solved them the report itself could be the high quality
piece of work.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:38:57 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> First, I don't have any references - and they want two of 'em. I *would*
> have put my boss, but he recently left the company. I would have put our
> site manager, but he recently left too. The new management team can't
> even remember my name. No point having them for references! I might also
> have said my uni lecturers - you know, if the uni hadn't shut down as
> soon as I graduated...
So why not use the old boss and site manager? They're not going to be
losing you now that they're gone. If you can get in touch with them, do
so and ask if you can use them as references?
As they have recently left, they are probably in a better position to
help you than anyone you currently work with.
> 1. Describe a time when you worked with others to solve a complex
> problem.
>
> Um... OK. What do you say to this one? I mean, if you happen to work for
> a company that designs complex products and you're on the design team,
> this should be a cakewalk. But otherwise? I mean, when was the last time
> YOU solved a complex problem? (Never mind with other people.)
>
> Suffice it to say, I can't think of a single example for this. I've
> never *met* anybody (apart from me) who knows the difference between a
> Fourier transform and a Laplace transform. Any remotely complex problems
> I might have solved have been solved by me and me alone.
They're asking about solving business problems (that's what they'll be
most interested in). Use the firewall example, include as much detail as
is reasonable, but if you don't feel that that's enough, you can also
take the opportunity to say that one of the reasons you're applying is
because you want to stretch a bit more to reach your potential, and you
feel your current job is keeping you from doing just that.
> 2. Please describe an example of when you delivered a high quality piece
> of work that you were proud of.
>
> Hmm, this is hard. Usually when I deliver something, all I can think
> about is how badly it sucks and how I should have done much better...
> but maybe I can find something for this one.
Give yourself some credit for what you've done. We've talked about this
before.
> 3. Give an example of when you tacked an unfamiliar problem or task, and
> how you learned something new.
>
> Do I tell them about the time I spent 2 days writing out the binomial
> expansions of powers up to 9 by longhand algebra and thereby derived a
> special case of the binomial theorum from first principles? Or should I
> write something about the time when I tried to build a parser for my
> computer-aided algebra system, and ended up inventing Dijkstra's
> shunting algorithm? Either way, I highly doubt anybody will be
> impressed. After all, reinventing obscure mathematics hardly counts as
> "solving" a "problem"...
Well, write it up and see what it looks like. But also, as with the
first question, they're probably more interested in business problems.
Maybe talk about how you learned about the regulations having to do with
audits - you probably didn't come out of Uni having any experience with
formal government audits, but now you know the stuff pretty well. So the
unfamiliar task would be learning about what the audit consisted of and
what had to be done, and then describe how you learned about what the
requirements are.
> 4. Please describe a time when you took on a task that illustrates your
> active interest in this area of work and allowed you to develop new
> skills.
>
> Uuuhhhh... Well I can tell you all mannar of things I've learned out of
> pure curiosity. But things I learned because of attempting to perform a
> specific "task"?
>
> ...nope, I'm comming up blank here...
What is the area of work in question?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
> > OTOH, many laws have been passed which feel constitutionally extremely
> > dubious (eg. regarding freedom of speech) which this board has nevertheless
> > given a thumbs up. Sometimes I seriously doubt the impartiality of the
> > board.
> Is there a process to over rule this groups opinion of the law, or is it
> absolute?
I don't really know. I suppose it's probable.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:487### [at] hotmailcom...
> If such a policy is in place, it becomes relatively less easy for a
> white guy to find a job. So when it is in place for some time...
>
> Probably does not work that way.
It does. Highly skilled people of european descent have a very hard time
finding work here. It's not just males.
White females are not previously disadvantaged.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> The first 10 amendments to the constitution actually went further, and
> forbid certain kinds of laws from being created.
Technically, the constitution already says the government isn't allowed
to make certain kinds of laws, and the first ten amendments reiterated
some of them. Some of the arguments against passing them in the first
place (way back in the first years of the country's existence) were
exactly for that reason: If we say the government specifically can't do
ABC when we've already said they can't do anything we don't explicitly
allow, then people will forget that latter part and let them do XYZ.
It was a good first try, but it's still a republic, and falls apart when
nobody elected can be trusted.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-Jul-08 18:11, Gail Shaw wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:487### [at] hotmailcom...
>
>> If such a policy is in place, it becomes relatively less easy for a
>> white guy to find a job. So when it is in place for some time...
>>
>> Probably does not work that way.
>
> It does. Highly skilled people of european descent have a very hard time
> finding work here. It's not just males.
> White females are not previously disadvantaged.
>
I think I was not clear enough :(
ATM you and any guy with similar color has a disadvantage in finding a
job, hence soon you will be previously disadvantaged. And my guess was
that that would be logically correct, but highly unlikely to be
acknowledged.
BTW Gail, a couple of weeks ago I met three students from Witwatersrand
at a biomedical engineering conference. All non blacks, but that could
be a coincidence. I am also involved somewhat with a summerschool in the
hospital, of the 30 or attendants 10 or so come from SA, from the Cape
Town area this time. Also at the conference, a friend of mine
(Portuguese but born in Maputo) and me decided that it would be a good
idea if the big triannual conference would go to africa. So we asked
some friends in Cape Town if they would consider putting in a bid to
organize it. If that works out I will be going to SA in ... 2015! Anyway
there seems to be a disproportional lot of SA in my live recently.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:488### [at] hotmailcom...
> And my guess was
> that that would be logically correct, but highly unlikely to be
> acknowledged.
Ah, sorry, I misread. You aer correct.
The definition of "previously disadvantaged" is disadvantaged by the
government that was in power until 1994.
Logically, that means that no one born after 1994 can be considered
"previously disadvantaged".
> If that works out I will be going to SA in ... 2015! Anyway
> there seems to be a disproportional lot of SA in my live recently.
Awesome. We're mostly nice people.
If you do come down here, and I'm still in SA at the time, we can arrange
some get together somewhere..
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-Jul-08 21:59, Gail Shaw wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:488### [at] hotmailcom...
>> And my guess was
>> that that would be logically correct, but highly unlikely to be
>> acknowledged.
>
> Ah, sorry, I misread. You aer correct.
> The definition of "previously disadvantaged" is disadvantaged by the
> government that was in power until 1994.
> Logically, that means that no one born after 1994 can be considered
> "previously disadvantaged".
And, are they?
>
>> If that works out I will be going to SA in ... 2015! Anyway
>> there seems to be a disproportional lot of SA in my live recently.
>
> Awesome. We're mostly nice people.
The ones I meet, yes. People from Johannesburg have this strange habit
to tell how wonderful it is there and if you come there you'll have a
fantastic time. The they add something like: 'well, if you survive'. I
was saying goodbye to one of them. Next to us someone steps into his
(rather new) car. Comment: 'In Johannesburg he wouldn't have done that.
Two guys standing by your car? pretend it's not yours and wait until
they are gone' And so on, funny (the first time)
> If you do come down here, and I'm still in SA at the time, we can arrange
> some get together somewhere..
I'll do that. It'll probably be somewhere in August/September. Have any
plans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:488### [at] hotmailcom...
> > Ah, sorry, I misread. You aer correct.
> > The definition of "previously disadvantaged" is disadvantaged by the
> > government that was in power until 1994.
> > Logically, that means that no one born after 1994 can be considered
> > "previously disadvantaged".
>
> And, are they?
At the moment, yes. There's been some discussion about narrowing the scope
of the "previously disadvantaged" tag, but nothing's been done.
It would not be in the ruling party's favor to do that though, as many of
their strongest supporters are in the 'youth league'
> The ones I meet, yes. People from Johannesburg have this strange habit
> to tell how wonderful it is there and if you come there you'll have a
> fantastic time.
We feel obliged to counter the bad publicity the country gets
> I'll do that. It'll probably be somewhere in August/September. Have any
> plans?
For 2015? Not at the moment. <g>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
