> Like I said, I think I just find foreign accents intimidating.

Everyone finds it hard to understand perfectly different accents until they 
are used to them, I remember two Scottish guys that used to come to our 
office, the number of times I had to ask them to repeat stuff they said, 
also have you ever heard Patrick Moore speak?

Anyway, fact is you get used to accents, and if you're surrounded by people 
all with the same accent you're going to get used to it really quickly and 
then it won't intimidate you.

Post a reply to this message

none wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>>
>> No, it's more that I find foreigners intimidating. That being the 
>> case, it's not a good idea to deliberately surround myself with them.
>>
> In all seriousness, did I intimidate you? I hope not...
Arrrrgg! stupid Thunderbird (or better: stupid me)! That previous post 
is supposed to come from me...

Post a reply to this message

none wrote:
> none wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>>
>>> No, it's more that I find foreigners intimidating. That being the 
>>> case, it's not a good idea to deliberately surround myself with them.
>>>
>> In all seriousness, did I intimidate you? I hope not...
> Arrrrgg! stupid Thunderbird (or better: stupid me)! That previous post 
> is supposed to come from me...
Whaaa! It's me, Michael Zier! Why does that "none"-thingy happen to me...

Post a reply to this message

none wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>>
>> No, it's more that I find foreigners intimidating. That being the 
>> case, it's not a good idea to deliberately surround myself with them.
>>
> In all seriousness, did I intimidate you? I hope not...
Ok, it was me, seems to work now.

Micha

Post a reply to this message

>>> In all seriousness, did I intimidate you? I hope not...
>> Arrrrgg! stupid Thunderbird (or better: stupid me)! That previous post 
>> is supposed to come from me...
> Whaaa! It's me, Michael Zier! Why does that "none"-thingy happen to me...

You don't exist. Go away.

How many computer systems have told you THAT, eh? ;-)

Post a reply to this message

>>> No, it's more that I find foreigners intimidating. That being the 
>>> case, it's not a good idea to deliberately surround myself with them.
>>>
>> In all seriousness, did I intimidate you? I hope not...
> Ok, it was me, seems to work now.

Only a little.

(Mostly when you talk about Bahhhhhkk... *wipe*)

;-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>>> In all seriousness, did I intimidate you? I hope not...
>>> Arrrrgg! stupid Thunderbird (or better: stupid me)! That previous 
>>> post is supposed to come from me...
>> Whaaa! It's me, Michael Zier! Why does that "none"-thingy happen to me...
> 
> You don't exist. Go away.
> 
> How many computer systems have told you THAT, eh? ;-)
*pop*






[silence follows.]

Post a reply to this message

On 1-12-2009 11:24, Invisible wrote:

> I don't think it's feasible for me to get an enjoyable job. Let's face 
> it, nobody is going to pay me to sit around geeking out over monadic 
> combinator libraries. They're going to pay me to get a job done, no 
> matter how boring it turns out to be.
> 
> One of the careers advisors I spoke to suggested that with my skill set 
> I should maybe look at financial modelling. I looked around, and did 
> find a job. First, the job was based in London. Second, they demand a 
> PhD. Not negotiatable. I guess if I had really amazing grades from my 
> degree I could argue that they should at least look at me... but I don't.

So, get yourself a job where you can study for a grade.

> Let's be real here. You want to be a programmer? Why should I hire you? 
> There are other programmers out there. Programmers who can do C and C++. 
> Programmers who understand cache coherence and can cope with 
> little-endian data (mis)representation. Programmers who won't get bored 
> and do something unrelated every five minutes.
> 
> You wanna be a technical writer? Other people can write. And most of 
> them write a damned site better than you. They can express themselves 
> clearly, they can FREAKING SPELL, and they can type faster than you. Why 
> should we hire you?
> 
> You wanna do something with maths? Other people have a real, formal 
> mathematical education. With certificates and grades to prove it. Who 
> are you trying to kid?
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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.

I think a few people, including me, already pointed out that this is 
merely your imagination at work, combined with your legendary google skills.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> No, it's more that I find foreigners intimidating. That being the case, 
> it's not a good idea to deliberately surround myself with them.

Quite the opposite, really.

> I don't think it's feasible for me to get an enjoyable job. Let's face 
> it, nobody is going to pay me to sit around geeking out over monadic 
> combinator libraries. They're going to pay me to get a job done, no 
> matter how boring it turns out to be.

Google will let you spend 20% of your time working on whatever project you 
want to work on.  So yeah, they will pay you to sit around geeking out over 
monadic combinator libraries.

I have the contact info for a google HR person if you want to bop your 
resume in directly.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Google will let you spend 20% of your time working on whatever project 
> you want to work on.  So yeah, they will pay you to sit around geeking 
> out over monadic combinator libraries.
> 
> I have the contact info for a google HR person if you want to bop your 
> resume in directly.

In which country?

Last time I checked, Google doesn't have a presence in the UK.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> In which country?

Well, obviously the contact is in the USA.

> Last time I checked, Google doesn't have a presence in the UK.

I'm sure they do, but probably not for software. Sys admin stuff, I'm sure 
they have servers in the UK.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:50:25 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>> If I wanted to get a job where I get paid to write stuff in Haskell,
>>> that would be an unrealistic aim.
>> 
>> Wrong.  If you wanted to get a job where you are paid to write stuff in
>> Haskell in an area where there are no such jobs, *that* would be
>> unrealistic.
>> 
>> 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....?

>>> If I wanted to work for Nokia, that would be an unrealistic aim.
>> 
>> Nonsense.  Nokia has jobs that run the entire range of skillsets.
> 
> OK, so I could probably get a job as a receptionist for Nokia. I guess I
> should have specified more clearly...

You could probably get a tech job with Nokia if you actually applied for 
one.

>>> If I wanted to earn £25,000 a year, that would be an unrealistic aim.
>> 
>> Total bollocks.  If you wanted to earn £25,000 for sitting on your arse
>> and doing absolutely nothing, *that* would be an unrealistic aim.  It
>> *might* be unrealistic to look for jobs in your area that pay that
>> well, too.  But finding a job that pays that outside of MK?  Yeah, you
>> could do that, but you're not willing to look outside the immediate
>> area.
> 
> 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.

>>> But I don't see why getting a job somewhere near to where I live would
>>> be an unrealistic aim.
>> 
>> Is there 100% employment where you live?
> 
> Is there 100% employment anywhere in the entire country? (Or indeed, in
> *any* country, anywhere in the world?) Of course not.

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.

>> so that being the
>> case, sure, it's perhaps somewhat unrealistic to think there are more
>> jobs than employees in your immediate area.
> 
> Of course, because if an area doesn't have 100% employment, then it is
> impossible to get a job. Oh, wait... so how come people all over the
> world do exactly this every single day?

People all over the world also are unemployed.  And some people move to 
where the job is.

>> The fact that you've not
>> found anything in the immediate area would seem to belie that fact, in
>> fact - and so without expanding your search to a broader area and
>> broader selection criteria would be the logical next step.
> 
> Or rather, "I'm looking for the wrong kind of job". Clearly there aren't
> any programming jobs around here, so I should look for something else.

That would be another change in scope, yes - but if you really want to be 
a programmer, then you can fix that requirement and change the others.  
It's the combination of "I want to program" and "I want to stay in MK" 
that seem to be the problem - so change the things that will make what is 
the overriding desire happen.

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.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:24:07 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>> It depends on what you like.
>>>
>>> I gather that there are people who actually *like* travelling. People
>>> who pay to go on round the world cruises. Personally, I'd hate that.
>>> But that's OK; people are different.
>> 
>> Working someplace isn't the same as vacationing there.  But you know
>> that.  And yes, people are different.
>> 
>> I'm trying to point out (and apparently reaching "epic fail" with it)
>> that you're forming opinions on places based on, well, nothing.  You
>> think you would hate living in Zurich or Geneva based on no actual
>> experience at having been there at all.
> 
> Of course. Because I've never been to Geneva. Oh, wait - actually yes,
> yes I have. :-P

And how much time have you spent there?

>> You make assumptions that the
>> people there would treat you as bad or worse than you're treated now,
>> but you have zero empirical evidence to suggest that.
> 
> No, it's more that I find foreigners intimidating. That being the case,
> it's not a good idea to deliberately surround myself with them.

Or putting yourself in that situation could help you learn to work with 
foreigners more easily.  I'm guessing here, but it seems that you find 
foreigners intimidating because you think they're "out to get you" or 
something like that.  You haven't had enough experience with them to 
realize that they're out there just trying to get by - the same as you.

>>> There are people who *want* to live in the south of France, because
>>> it's very sunny there. Personally, I hate hot weather. It would drive
>>> me mad! But hey, that's why I'm not moving to the south of France,
>>> right?
>> 
>> "Sunny" is different from "hot".  OK, you don't like warm weather; I
>> don't particularly like it either.  Maybe you'd like Scotland?
> 
> I imagine that would be far too cold. But yeah, I get your point.

Finally. ;-)

>>> And I am completely confident that there are plenty of people who'd
>>> *love* to live and work in Switzerland. (It would be kind of an empty
>>> country otherwise...) Doesn't mean I'd like it though.
>> 
>> But as I said you don't seem to have any empirical evidence that says
>> you wouldn't like it either.
> 
> Apart from having spent several weeks in Switzerland? And that doesn't
> count because...?

And what parts of Switzerland have you spent time in?  You said Geneva, 
OK.  And what part of "seem" implies that your experiences there don't 
count?  

> 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.

>> So if you want to live near where you work, there are two options: 
>> Find a job closer to home, or find a home closer to the job.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> If you're
>> looking for a new job, then you have the freedom to look anywhere and
>> move near the job.  Which means you can find something you'll actually
>> *like* doing without the constraints of it being "near home" because
>> "home" can be moved.
>> 
>> You're still young (no matter what you think) and unattached.  It's the
>> *perfect* time to look for something that really engages your abilities
>> and skills and passion and not care particularly *where* it is.
> 
> I don't think it's feasible for me to get an enjoyable job. Let's face
> it, nobody is going to pay me to sit around geeking out over monadic
> combinator libraries. They're going to pay me to get a job done, no
> matter how boring it turns out to be.

Well, again, I call BS on this.  It's feasible, but it's not going to 
fall in your lap.  You have to seek it out (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 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.  Doing that is 
more like what people on unemployment here in the states do in order to 
keep collecting unemployment - making a token effort so they can continue 
to bring in their unemployment cheques.  You have to try harder than 
that, and when you find a place you want to work, keep persisting.

For me with Novell, it took 3 tries before I found something that was a 
good fit.  And when I found the good fit at job #3 that I applied for, I 
was on the phone *every single day* with my hiring manager between my 
final interview and the day they officially offered me the position to 
find out where things were at and what needed to be done.

> One of the careers advisors I spoke to suggested that with my skill set
> I should maybe look at financial modelling. I looked around, and did
> find a job. First, the job was based in London. Second, they demand a
> PhD. Not negotiatable. I guess if I had really amazing grades from my
> degree I could argue that they should at least look at me... but I
> don't.

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.  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?

> Let's be real here. You want to be a programmer? Why should I hire you?
> There are other programmers out there. Programmers who can do C and C++.
> Programmers who understand cache coherence and can cope with
> little-endian data (mis)representation. Programmers who won't get bored
> and do something unrelated every five minutes.

Discipline in a field comes with time in the field.  You gotta start 
somewhere.

> You wanna be a technical writer? Other people can write. And most of
> them write a damned site better than you. They can express themselves
> clearly, they can FREAKING SPELL, and they can type faster than you. Why
> should we hire you?

Again, skills that come with time.  You could be a technical writer, 
absolutely.  You'd need to edit carefully from a spelling standpoint, but 
so what?  I've written professionally, and I needed an editor too.  Big 
f'ing deal - that's the way the business works.

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.

Nobody - and I mean *NOBODY* has 100% of the skills they need for a job 
they've just started.  I'm responsible for practical testing technologies 
and business at Novell.  I started this position about a year ago, and 
had absolutely no background in testing technologies.  I was thrown into 
the position and then my attendance to the one conference that would 
really have helped me understand my business was canceled because of 
travel restrictions.

But my background in IT combined with my skills on the business side of 
things have really made the fact that I know nothing about testing 
methodologies (other than what I've learned on the job) makes me pretty 
effective in my job.  I enjoy what I do and I learn something new every 
day.  It's been an opportunity for me to learn about project management, 
time management, business planning, and other things in that area - 
things I never thought I could do or would enjoy doing.

It also means that I can set up requirements for the developers I work 
with that are realistic, and I get results because they can't BS me - 
something my management really seems to like about having me in this 
position.

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.

> You wanna do something with maths? Other people have a real, formal
> mathematical education. With certificates and grades to prove it. Who
> are you trying to kid?

Formal education is overrated.  I say this as someone who didn't graduate 
college.

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

> 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.

>> Actually, most of them are in Germany because that's where they live
>> and they are doing something there that makes them happy.  I also know
>> someone who grew up in the Netherlands who works in New Zealand,
>> someone who grew up in New Zealand who works in New York, and my
>> younger brother grew up in Minneapolis and now lives and works in
>> Osaka, Japan.  I've another friend who grew up in Alabama (if I
>> remember correctly) who lives and works in Germany.  Shall I continue? 
>> Coworkers who grew up in India who live and work in Utah; another who
>> is from Australia who lives and works in Utah.
> 
> Like I said, some people *like* to travel. I don't.

You seem to like going to Switzerland. ;-)

>>>> and why would it be "obviously impossible" anyways?
>>> Because ordinary people don't get to work in cool places like that.
>>> Only special people. I'm not special. (Not that way, anyway...)
>> 
>> Bullshit.  The only people who don't get to work there are those who
>> are (a) unqualified, or (b) don't bother to apply because they don't
>> think they stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting the job so they
>> don't even try.
>> 
>> TRY, DAMMIT!
> 
> 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?  Don't let life happen to you - take 
control!

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:31:59 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> But then, if you want to travel from France to Germany, you get on a
> road and start driving. Leaving England is a little more complex...

Yeah, you get on Eurostar and someone else does the driving. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:09:58 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> One guy told me that Hell's Angels are "actually really friendly
> people". But I don't know whether that's actually true...

It is, in my experience.  Sure there are some who are more unfriendly 
than others - that happens in any group.  But having gone to school in 
Daytona, FL and been there for "Bike Week", I had ample opportunities to 
interact with people in various biker groups.  Generally very nice people.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Google will let you spend 20% of your time working on whatever project

>> you want to work on.  So yeah, they will pay you to sit around geeking

>> out over monadic combinator libraries.
>>
>> I have the contact info for a google HR person if you want to bop your

>> resume in directly.
> 
> In which country?
> 
> Last time I checked, Google doesn't have a presence in the UK.

I distinctly remember telling you via this froup that Google has a
building a couple of hundred yards from where I live (London, remember)
Their address is >Belgrave House, 76 Buckingham Palace Rd, London, SW1W 9
TQ‎
Telephone
>020 7031 3000‎
Now you can phone them and ask for a job ;-)

John
-- 
Cogito sum,|| wbu### [at] tznvypbz (rot'ed) || GPG Key Fingerprint:
ergo sum,  ||                                    || 0D9BCF4CF1B71CA2F5F7
cogito     ||                                    || BFBBCBC34EDEAEFCE453

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Like I said, I think I just find foreign accents intimidating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UgpfSp2t6k

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

>> In which country?
> 
> Well, obviously the contact is in the USA.
> 
>> Last time I checked, Google doesn't have a presence in the UK.
> 
> I'm sure they do, but probably not for software. Sys admin stuff, I'm 
> sure they have servers in the UK.

I get the impression that Google of all people probably has data centers 
all around the world - don't know if they "own" them though. I guess 
actually they probably do...

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.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:56:15 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> In which country?
>> 
>> Well, obviously the contact is in the USA.
>> 
>>> Last time I checked, Google doesn't have a presence in the UK.
>> 
>> I'm sure they do, but probably not for software. Sys admin stuff, I'm
>> sure they have servers in the UK.
> 
> I get the impression that Google of all people probably has data centers
> all around the world - don't know if they "own" them though. I guess
> actually they probably do...
> 
> 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.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> I note with some amusement that in my country, "50 miles" *is* from 
>> one coast to the other. :P
> 
> In Europe, 100 miles is a long distance. In the USA, 100 years is a long 
> time. :-)
> 
How true :)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> One guy told me that Hell's Angels are "actually really friendly
>> people". But I don't know whether that's actually true...
> 
> It is, in my experience.

Oh, fair enough.

Certainly bikers have a reputation for being the sort of thungs who'll 
rip your arms out of their sockets just for looking at them wrong. But 
as we all know, reputations are always founded on solid facts... ;-)

Post a reply to this message

>> 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 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.

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 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?

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

>> 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?

> 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.

>> Or rather, "I'm looking for the wrong kind of job". Clearly there aren't
>> any programming jobs around here, so I should look for something else.
> 
> That would be another change in scope, yes - but if you really want to be 
> a programmer, then you can fix that requirement and change the others.  
> It's the combination of "I want to program" and "I want to stay in MK" 
> that seem to be the problem - so change the things that will make what is 
> the overriding desire happen.
> 
> 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...

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."

Post a reply to this message

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

as meaning this:

   "We will accept anybody who applies."

Sure, seems completely plausible to me. :-P

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> Formal education is overrated.

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

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

I did?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post a reply to this message

> You go to some jobs website. You click the button that says "apply", and 
> it tells you "your CV has been forwarded".

Fail!  You should check and double check the job description and update your 
CV to match before applying to each job.  Simply sending an exact copy of 
the same CV to everywhere that sounds interesting is a recipe for failure. 
Also I see a lot of jobs are advertised through agencies, sometimes several 
agencies will be advertising the same job, it's worth applying through *all* 
the agencies for the same job (in this case obviously you can post the exact 
same CV and cover letter).

> You never hear back. What else can you do?

If you are sure your CV is the best it can be then just keep searching and 
apply for more jobs.  More jobs come up daily so don't worry.  You can get 
monster.co.uk to automatically email you new jobs that match your criteria 
every day, very useful.

> "We're working on it." Seriously, what more can you actually do?

Apply for more jobs.

>   "We will accept anybody who applies."
>
> Sure, seems completely plausible to me. :-P

Depends who else has applied.  When we were trying to get an Engineer for 
our office here in Munich we had to work really hard to just find 4 or 5 
people to bring in for interview, this was after having advertised on 
monster.de and in several newspapers.  None of the ones we interviewed were 
particularly great (an electrical engineer who has never used an 
oscilloscope, wtf!), we had to take someone as we desperately needed another 
person - in the end our company got a recruitment freeze just before we were 
about to offer him the job!

> 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.

If they are willing to accept people without a PhD then it's not going to 
automatically filter out people without a PhD is it?  Anyway, depending on 
the number of people who apply, every single one might well be read by a 
Real Person.

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

Now for that job your CV is definitely completely wrong.  By a very very 
long way.

Post a reply to this message

>> You go to some jobs website. You click the button that says "apply", 
>> and it tells you "your CV has been forwarded".
> 
> Fail!  You should check and double check the job description and update 
> your CV to match before applying to each job.

1. Most of these websites don't allow you to do that. (You can only have 
one version of your CV - or sometimes 3 or something.)

2. I don't have time to write thousands of custom versions of my CV.

3. Usually the jobs I'm applying for are so tangentally related to what 
I'm actually after that it's dubious that I *could* make my CV look any 
more relevant than it already does (i.e., not very).

> Simply sending an exact 
> copy of the same CV to everywhere that sounds interesting is a recipe 
> for failure.

I don't have a lot of choice here. It took *months* to get my CV to the 
stage it's at now. God only knows how long it would take to customise it 
for every single job I've ever applied for. And it would be just my luck 
that I'd end up missing out important information or adding spelling 
mistakes. By having only one CV, I can work on making it a very strong 
CV. By having millions, I dilute that effort.

>> You never hear back. What else can you do?
> 
> If you are sure your CV is the best it can be then just keep searching 
> and apply for more jobs.  More jobs come up daily so don't worry.  You 
> can get monster.co.uk to automatically email you new jobs that match 
> your criteria every day, very useful.

Monster currently sends me one email roughly every 6 months containing 
one not-very-relevant job vacancy.

I guess if that isn't a clear sign that you're looking for the wrong 
job, what is?

> Apply for more jobs.

See above.

>>   "We will accept anybody who applies."
>>
>> Sure, seems completely plausible to me. :-P
> 
> Depends who else has applied.

We're talking about the investment branch of Lloyds TSB, in the 
financial district of London. I doubt they're short of applicants.

> When we were trying to get an Engineer 
> for our office here in Munich we had to work really hard to just find 4 
> or 5 people to bring in for interview, this was after having advertised 
> on monster.de and in several newspapers.  None of the ones we 
> interviewed were particularly great (an electrical engineer who has 
> never used an oscilloscope, wtf!), we had to take someone as we 
> desperately needed another person - in the end our company got a 
> recruitment freeze just before we were about to offer him the job!

Ouch. Sounds like a lot of fun...

>> I might as well go apply to be the CEO of Sony BMG. I'd have as much 
>> chance of success.
> 
> Now for that job your CV is definitely completely wrong.  By a very very 
> long way.

It's also definitely completely wrong for a job that demands a PhD - you 
know, with it not mentioning a PhD anywhere and all...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>>> You go to some jobs website. You click the button that says "apply", 
>>> and it tells you "your CV has been forwarded".
>>
>> Fail!  You should check and double check the job description and 
>> update your CV to match before applying to each job.
> 
> 1. Most of these websites don't allow you to do that. (You can only have 
> one version of your CV - or sometimes 3 or something.)
> 

Poo! You don’t use the CV registered on the website. You upload a fresh one.

> 2. I don't have time to write thousands of custom versions of my CV.
> 

You do it as the jobs appear and as for time. How long to you spend here?

> 3. Usually the jobs I'm applying for are so tangentally related to what 
> I'm actually after that it's dubious that I *could* make my CV look any 
> more relevant than it already does (i.e., not very).
> 

Keep trying and one might work.

>> Simply sending an exact copy of the same CV to everywhere that sounds 
>> interesting is a recipe for failure.
> 
> I don't have a lot of choice here. It took *months* to get my CV to the 
> stage it's at now. God only knows how long it would take to customise it 
> for every single job I've ever applied for. And it would be just my luck 
> that I'd end up missing out important information or adding spelling 
> mistakes. By having only one CV, I can work on making it a very strong 
> CV. By having millions, I dilute that effort.
> 

Why not listen to people who apply for and get jobs? Hmm. :)

>>> You never hear back. What else can you do?
>>

Phone the agency even if it is on the pretext of ensuring that they got 
your CV.
That’s what I do.

> 
> We're talking about the investment branch of Lloyds TSB, in the 
> financial district of London. I doubt they're short of applicants.
> 

In the hotel where I am staying in Chester there are a couple of long 
term residents who are training new starts for Lloyds TSB. So there must 
be a demand for the training.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> 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.

*snort*

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Clearly jobs don't find you. (Unless you're ludicrously talented and 
> very well-known. I am neither.) 

Or unless you know people who deal with lots of people. I get jobs for 
people all the time, and vice versa. If I was impressed working with you, 
I'll recommend you to people looking to hire. The same as any other brand. :-)

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

Be aware that even if you're the perfect fit for the job, *with* a PhD and 
30 years experience, this is *still* how it works. 90% of the time you hear 
nothing back. Of the rest, 90% of the time it's an instant rejection. And 
that's for jobs that practically list you by name.

If you want a new job, send three or four resumes a day for a month.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Monster currently sends me one email roughly every 6 months containing 
> one not-very-relevant job vacancy.

I have the best luck with craigslist.

http://london.craigslist.co.uk/sof/

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

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.

Post a reply to this message

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.

That's why we keep telling you to GTFO of MK.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Well Warp seems fairly convinced that I'm a rubbish programmer

  Actually I think you are paranoid.

> - and, 
> AFAIK, he's the only person here who writes programs for a living.

  That would be quite surprising.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 2-12-2009 10:41, Invisible wrote:

>> 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 

I am not sure how he could say that (or even if he did) from the small 
snippets of code that you posted. I think there are many sides to a 
programmer, I'd rather not judge them just based on some lines they wrote.

> - and, AFAIK, he's the only person here who writes programs for a living. 

Which mainly shows that you don't really pay attention to what other 
people say. ;)

> 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.

> I'm pretty 
> hopeless with mathematics too... What makes you think I have skills?

At least you are trying.

>> 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.

Is that not simply equivalent to: 'I don't know anybody'?

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:26:59 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>> One guy told me that Hell's Angels are "actually really friendly
>>> people". But I don't know whether that's actually true...
>> 
>> It is, in my experience.
> 
> Oh, fair enough.
> 
> Certainly bikers have a reputation for being the sort of thungs who'll
> rip your arms out of their sockets just for looking at them wrong. But
> as we all know, reputations are always founded on solid facts... ;-)

Absolutely. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> - and, AFAIK, he's the only person here who writes programs for a living. 
> 
> Which mainly shows that you don't really pay attention to what other 
> people say. ;)

Um... OK. :-S

>> 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.]

>> Erm... like I say, I don't know of anybody who had to move just to 
>> find work.
> 
> Is that not simply equivalent to: 'I don't know anybody'?

Plausibly.

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

Post a reply to this message

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

>> 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.

And finding jobs I want is one of the problems.

> You keep doing the employer's 
> filtering for them by looking for reasons why you're not qualified and 
> not applying.

I suppose arguably that's the other half...

Post a reply to this message

>>> 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.

 From what I've seen recruiters are utterly useless... I don't know if 
they're any use to the company paying for their services, but they're no 
use at all to the people trying to get hired.

>> 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.

Yeah, but that doesn't really work. It would be wonderful if I won 
several million on the lottery, and I could just retire to my stately 
home with a built-in custom recording studio. BUT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE! So 
thinking about my current bank balance doesn't motivate me to buy a 
lottery ticket any more than the current trainwreck of a job I have 
motivates me to look for another one - it seems equally impossible.

>>> 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.

I don't think I really gained anything useful from this job - other than 
being able to _claim_ that I have commercial experience now...

>>> 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. :-)

...which brings us back to "I don't know anybody". :-/

Besides, I gather the rules of these things are such that it's supposed 
to be somebody who knows you on a professional capacity? That's going to 
be even more of a problem...

>> 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.

[Understatement.]

> That is what a CV is - a marketing document.

Indeed.

> I also happen to believe that you do have real 
> skills and would be an asset to anyone who hired you.

Well, that's kind of the problem. I *like* playing with equations, but 
I'm not actually very *good* at it, unfortunately. And it's also not a 
very useful thing to do anyway. The long and short of it is... I'm not a 
very useful employee. Secondly, even if I had useful skills, I don't 
have any "proof". There's nothing I can easily show to somebody that 
will prove to them that I'm not just talking out of my arse.

> I see a lot of 
> potential in your abilities that you don't seem to see in yourself.

Apparently.

>>> 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.

The job I was referring to is about the one job where I *did* actually 
follow up (not that it helped), but anyway...

>> 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.

I think part of it is having nobody around me to encourage me to 
continue. When I apply for a job, nobody says "well done". When I don't 
apply for a job, nobody says "you need to try harder". Either way, it's 
just me, sitting in an empty room, staring at my computer thinking "now, 
do I spend 4 hours on a pointless and utterly depressing task, or shall 
I go read about non-Euclidian geometry for a while?" You can see how 
that one's going to turn out most of the time.

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, to actually get a job you have to 
apply for several hundred trillion jobs. Given that under optimum 
conditions, I might be able to find maybe 3 agency adverts to apply for 
after several soul-destroying hours of searching, it's going to take 
several human lifetimes for me to apply to even a hundred, never mind a 
billion.

> I've seen you fight back in discussions up here
> which is something you hadn't done before.  You're 
> learning to stand up for yourself, and that's a GOOD thing.

On the contrary, now it seems people just think I'm an opinionated idiot.

> Applying that in an online forum is a good first step.  Applying it in 
> 'meatspace' is the next step.

Nah. Telling a bunch of glyphs on a screen "you're wrong" is one thing. 
Telling that to a 300-pound gorilla of a man standing on front of you 
holding a baseball bat? Not so easy.

> 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.

The irony is, *my boss* is usually the guy who's being unreasonable at 
me. ;-)

Like, currently I'm waiting for the site GM to return from... wherever 
the hell he is right now, so that I can talk to him about that email I 
got. Basically I was told I have to be trained on the procedure document 
explaining how the scientists in the laboratory in Oregon manage and 
maintain their lab water purification system. I decided (and the local 
QA manager agrees) that this is utterly irrelevant to my job. I'm never 
even going to set foot on Oregon, why *the hell* do I care how their 
water system works?! But my boss is adamant that I have to be trained on 
everything on the list he gave me. Of course, I'm just some nobody, so 
no one's going to listen to me, but the QA manager is the kind of guy 
that people sit up and listen to. (He's in QA, after all. These people 
are feared everywhere.) So we'll see how that one works out...

Did you know, the company has a set of 14 "core values". And value 11 is 
"I support the hiring of people who are smarter than me". I feel that in 
the case of the Director of IT, that shouldn't be a difficult task. :-P

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:11:57 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>> 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.
> 
> And finding jobs I want is one of the problems.

That could be, and may well be a matter of scoping differently.

>> You keep doing the employer's
>> filtering for them by looking for reasons why you're not qualified and
>> not applying.
> 
> I suppose arguably that's the other half...

Ayup.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:53:04 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>>> 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.
> 
>  From what I've seen recruiters are utterly useless... I don't know if
> they're any use to the company paying for their services, but they're no
> use at all to the people trying to get hired.

Ding ding ding ding ding!  So relying on recruiters is a bad way to try 
to find a job.  Basically, you're outsourcing your job search to someone 
with no real interest or motivation to help you out.

>>> 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.
> 
> Yeah, but that doesn't really work. It would be wonderful if I won
> several million on the lottery, and I could just retire to my stately
> home with a built-in custom recording studio. BUT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE! So
> thinking about my current bank balance doesn't motivate me to buy a
> lottery ticket any more than the current trainwreck of a job I have
> motivates me to look for another one - it seems equally impossible.

Then the motivation simply isn't strong enough - and you're content 
enough with the job that you have to not change the status quo.

>>>> 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.
> 
> I don't think I really gained anything useful from this job - other than
> being able to _claim_ that I have commercial experience now...

You've learned a bit about the bad kind of corporate politics (and thus 
you know that's something you want to try to avoid if you can); you've 
learned about meeting government regulations for data retention and such 
- how to deal with government auditors - there's plenty that you've 
learned.  But you don't recognize it because you're "inside" your own 
head, so you think what you've learned is no big deal.

>>>> 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. :-)
> 
> ...which brings us back to "I don't know anybody". :-/

Who's someone at work who you have helped who has not responded 
overwhelmingly negatively?  What's the best response you got for helping 
a user out?

> Besides, I gather the rules of these things are such that it's supposed
> to be somebody who knows you on a professional capacity? That's going to
> be even more of a problem...

Not necessarily.  You can have business references and personal 
references on most job applications.

>>> 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.
> 
> [Understatement.]

It's an important skill to cultivate.  I hate marketing in general, but 
it's one of those things that is necessary if you want to get ahead.

>> I also happen to believe that you do have real skills and would be an
>> asset to anyone who hired you.
> 
> Well, that's kind of the problem. I *like* playing with equations, but
> I'm not actually very *good* at it, unfortunately. And it's also not a
> very useful thing to do anyway. The long and short of it is... I'm not a
> very useful employee. Secondly, even if I had useful skills, I don't
> have any "proof". There's nothing I can easily show to somebody that
> will prove to them that I'm not just talking out of my arse.

You don't *think* you're good at it.  That's an important difference from 
not being good at it.

My mum has always thought that she was awful at maths.  But for *decades* 
she's sewed (she's self-employed now), and has been able to take a 
pattern and rescale it to fit specific individuals.  She doesn't consider 
that math - but it very much is, and she's able to not only work it out 
on her own, but she does it intuitively (not by sitting down and working 
out the measurements with a calculator).

But she refuses to see that she's actually quite good at math - but 
largely only when she doesn't think of it *as* math.

>> I see a lot of
>> potential in your abilities that you don't seem to see in yourself.
> 
> Apparently.

So trust what those of us who say you have good abilities and potential 
are telling you.  We have nothing to gain (or lose) by telling you that - 
it's an honest assessment, so take it as such.

>>>> 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.
> 
> The job I was referring to is about the one job where I *did* actually
> follow up (not that it helped), but anyway...

A follow-up doesn't guarantee that you'll get the job, but it increases 
the chances.  Since you're still learning what works and what doesn't, 
you got some experience out of that follow-up, and you should be proud of 
taking that additional step forward.

>>> 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.
> 
> I think part of it is having nobody around me to encourage me to
> continue. When I apply for a job, nobody says "well done". When I don't
> apply for a job, nobody says "you need to try harder". Either way, it's
> just me, sitting in an empty room, staring at my computer thinking "now,
> do I spend 4 hours on a pointless and utterly depressing task, or shall
> I go read about non-Euclidian geometry for a while?" You can see how
> that one's going to turn out most of the time.

Well, look at it from this side of the screen; we've told you repeatedly 
when you do things that help move you forward that you're doing well, 
even in the face of rejections.  When you don't apply for a job, we DO 
tell you that you need to try harder, and you say "gee, great, thanks, 
way to motivate me by telling me I suck!" - makes it kinda hard to 
provide feedback when you seem to ignore the positive feedback and when 
we tell you that you need to try harder you punch us in the face and say 
"yeah, like THAT'S helping".  We can and do provide encouragement, but 
only you can motivate yourself.  You want your circumstance to change, 
and you are the one who has to make that happen.

We can advise and help you out in some ways, but ultimately, it's your 
life and your situation should be what motivates you.  As I said before, 
none of us "out here" are in a position to even provide incentive, much 
less motivation.

When you look at your situation and you say "this sucks", the response 
you need to train yourself to have is "I'm going to DO something about 
the fact that it sucks" rather than "I'm just going to ignore it and hope 
it goes away".  You've been ignoring it for years and it hasn't gone 
away.  What's more, if the job you have goes away, then you're back to 
being the balloon that's buffeted by the winds.  It's your life and you 
need to take control - once you do that, you WILL be happier.

Start by setting some goals.  I don't even mean things like "I want a job 
at Nortel" or whatever, but higher level goals like "I want to move into 
my own flat in 3 years" or "I want to make x GBP per year" (though with 
that one, you need to be careful to not set a goal that's truly out of 
your reach - 10 million would be nice, but when setting goals, they need 
to be something achievable - a stretch is nice, but achievable is a 
must.  So if you're at 21K right now, say you'd like to be at 30K in 5 
years - if you do better than that, great.)

Once you've set some goals, then find people who have accomplished 
similar goals and look at what they did.  *Most* people have to work 
fairly hard to achieve their goals, and nobody starts out with the 
experience that got them to where they are.  So look at how they gained 
their experience, what mistakes they made, what things they did right, 
and see if those things that helped are things that you can do - and 
learn from their mistakes.

> Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, to actually get a job you have to
> apply for several hundred trillion jobs. Given that under optimum
> conditions, I might be able to find maybe 3 agency adverts to apply for
> after several soul-destroying hours of searching, it's going to take
> several human lifetimes for me to apply to even a hundred, never mind a
> billion.

Now you're exaggerating again.  Part of the reason it takes you so long 
is because you take everything extremely personally.  It's not - it's 
business.  So when a rejection comes along, just forget about it and move 
on to the next one - after thanking them for their time and asking that 
they contact you if an opportunity comes up.  They may never do so, but 
you need to remember some advice I got from a VP of marketing - if you 
can't have them leave you with a positive view, have them leave you with 
a neutral view.  You want to do everything you can to ensure you don't 
leave a bad impression, because that guarantees they'll never call you 
back.  But if you accept their decision to not employ you with grace, the 
next time they have a job you might be interested in, they'll remember 
that you acted professionally in the face of being turned down, and that 
type of professionalism is something that is desirable.

>> I've seen you fight back in discussions up here which is something you
>> hadn't done before.  You're learning to stand up for yourself, and
>> that's a GOOD thing.
> 
> On the contrary, now it seems people just think I'm an opinionated
> idiot.

Wrong.  But people can't help you taking things in the worst possible way 
- that's something you do and is a bad habit you need to break.

>> Applying that in an online forum is a good first step.  Applying it in
>> 'meatspace' is the next step.
> 
> Nah. Telling a bunch of glyphs on a screen "you're wrong" is one thing.
> Telling that to a 300-pound gorilla of a man standing on front of you
> holding a baseball bat? Not so easy.

First of all, how often are they literally holding a baseball bat?

Second of all, you seem to forget that I've *been there*.  Is it easy?  
No.  Is it possible?  Damned right it is.  In my early and mid 20's, I 
hated dealing with people.  I frequently would say that I would *always* 
work with computers and technology because they didn't punch back when 
you hit them.

In my most recent performance review (just a few weeks ago), I was 
complimented by my manager and my director for my people skills - 
particularly my ability to respond to people acting in an emotional 
manner to something I personally care about very much (things I have a 
personal interest in) in a way that doesn't inflame the situation and 
make it worse.

If you'd taken that performance review feedback to me 10 years ago and 
said "this is what your performance review for 2009 will be", I'd 
probably have said you were a f-ing liar because there's no way I would 
ever deal with people in that way.  I *really* hated dealing with people 
professionally - and even the suggestion that I'd be dealing with people 
first and technology second would've sounded like the stupidest thing 
ever and had about a 0% chance of happening.

>> 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.
> 
> The irony is, *my boss* is usually the guy who's being unreasonable at
> me. ;-)

BTDTGTTS.  One of my bosses who was like that was ex-Army, served in the 
first Gulf War, and he actually carried a gun with him (not in the 
office, but he kept one in his car - had some problems with unsavory 
types following him around or something).  I had no problem telling him 
he was being an idiot when he was being an idiot.  I *was* asked to 
resign after a few months of problems with him (which culminated in me 
going over his head and discussing his total lack of management skills 
with his boss, but my presentation came across as a power grab on my part 
- say the boss is a poor manager and then respond to "I suppose you want 
the job instead" with "Not really, but I would be willing to try if you 
felt I could do the job effectively" - to that particular director, that 
certainly came across as "I could do the job better than the current 
boss, just give me the chance to prove it").

A more recent boss would constantly slam me for little things (like not 
providing regular reports on stuff that the boss didn't indicate a need 
for), and rarely gave praise for doing good things.  It got so bad that I 
started looking for ways to get that boss removed.  End result was they 
were - to a non-management position.

My point is that your situation isn't unique - lots of people have had 
similar experiences and have survived them.  Learn from those who have.

> Like, currently I'm waiting for the site GM to return from... wherever
> the hell he is right now, so that I can talk to him about that email I
> got. Basically I was told I have to be trained on the procedure document
> explaining how the scientists in the laboratory in Oregon manage and
> maintain their lab water purification system. I decided (and the local
> QA manager agrees) that this is utterly irrelevant to my job. I'm never
> even going to set foot on Oregon, why *the hell* do I care how their
> water system works?! But my boss is adamant that I have to be trained on
> everything on the list he gave me. Of course, I'm just some nobody, so
> no one's going to listen to me, but the QA manager is the kind of guy
> that people sit up and listen to. (He's in QA, after all. These people
> are feared everywhere.) So we'll see how that one works out...

So how did it work out?  They may actually have reasons for training you 
on it that haven't been made clear.

It sounds like the QA manager might be a good mentor and someone you 
could use as a reference.  Maybe ask that individual if they'd mind if 
you came to them for advice when dealing with things that are beyond your 
experience.

I actually did that fairly recently with my director (my boss and I are 
good friends and he also is happy to advise when I have difficulty) - the 
reaction I got from my director was "absolutely - I'd be more than happy 
to help out" - she recognized (I think) that if I'm more able to do my 
job, then it makes her look better because she has a more effective 
staff.  At the same time, she has noticed huge changes in how I do my job 
in the past year, and part of the reason for that is because of her 
mentoring me as I ran into problems, because rather than react to the 
problem immediately, I'd ask for advice, and then my response to the 
problem would be much more measured and - in some cases - even more 
appropriate than just reacting.

When I talk about being "in control", that's the sort of thing I'm 
talking about.  I'm quite difficult in the workplace to provoke now into 
an emotional response (not that it doesn't happen occasionally).  Being 
able to do that has increased people's respect for what I can do and my 
ability to get my job done has improved significantly.

> Did you know, the company has a set of 14 "core values". And value 11 is
> "I support the hiring of people who are smarter than me". I feel that in
> the case of the Director of IT, that shouldn't be a difficult task. :-P

LOL, I hear ya there.  I do work with some people who seem to be 
delusional as well - or just not very bright at times.

BTW, there was an interesting article on Slashdot earlier today (I think, 
might've been yesterday) on Google's hiring practices.  That particular 
story was about the fact that sometimes Google doesn't hire the best 
person for the job - and they apparently do that intentionally.  You 
might have a look at that (not the /. story, but the story behind the 
story there) - you might find some interesting and useful insights there.

Jim

Post a reply to this message