On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:46:46 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> And then send your resume directly to whoever had the job.

Yes, I was just going to suggest that as well.  It seems Andy knows who 
the company is, so he should stop faffing about with employment agencies 
and talk directly to the company in question.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> At this point, I'm pretty upset and frustrated. I'm left once again
> wondering just what the hell I need to do to even reach the interview stage.

I was able to reach the interview stage quite a few times.  I've never got past
it, though.  That's why I got a job at the government:  if you pass the
technical exam, you're in.  No silly dilly-dallying about your life or your
clumsyness.

It gets easier talking in the phone as you age.  You realize it's never as
formal and serious as you think it is.  Be more of yourself and less of a drone
-- just remember this advice comes from someone who never got past an interview.
:P

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I was able to reach the interview stage quite a few times.  I've never got past
> it, though.  That's why I got a job at the government:  if you pass the
> technical exam, you're in.  No silly dilly-dallying about your life or your
> clumsyness.

  Job interviews are a curious phenomenon. As far as I know, a significant
portion of job interviews being performed out there could be considered,
more or less, total failures at achieving what they are supposed to achieve.

  Often interviewers are just outright incompetent at it. And this even if
the interviewer *is* an expert in the field (which is not a given). That's
because many such people are very poor at judging others' competence. Thus
it happens often that people who could be perfect for the job are dismissed
because of irrelevant things (eg. if the person being interviewed is nervous
about the interview) or because the interviewer is incapable of seeing that
the person might not be the best in the field *at that moment*, but he could
be a person who is a good learner and could get acquinted with the job quite
fast (for example, the interviewee might have never programmed for a certain
platform, but he could learn to do so rather efficiently in just a few weeks
and then be better than most people already in the company).

  And that's assuming the interview questions themselves are competent.
Often the questions are very poor, test the wrong things or don't test
anything useful or relevant at all.

  This causes for many competent people, people who could actually boost
the productivity of the company quite significantly, to be dismissed, and
also for incompetent people to get hired, for the sole reason that they
happened to convince the interviewer.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   This causes for many competent people, people who could actually boost
> the productivity of the company quite significantly, to be dismissed, and
> also for incompetent people to get hired, for the sole reason that they
> happened to convince the interviewer.

Ah. You've worked for my company then? The company where the entire 
management staff were hired on their ability to spout 
impressive-sounding power-words rather than actually, you know, manage 
things?

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

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:12:21 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Ah. You've worked for my company then? The company where the entire
> management staff were hired on their ability to spout
> impressive-sounding power-words rather than actually, you know, manage
> things?

This might come as a bit of a shock to you, but your company is not 
unique in that occurrence. ;-)

I've worked for a couple companies that had managers like that.  In fact, 
it's probably more fair to say that all of the companies I've worked for 
have had at least 1 manager who had no clue....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:

> >   This causes for many competent people, people who could actually boost
> > the productivity of the company quite significantly, to be dismissed, and
> > also for incompetent people to get hired, for the sole reason that they
> > happened to convince the interviewer.

> Ah. You've worked for my company then? The company where the entire 
> management staff were hired on their ability to spout 
> impressive-sounding power-words rather than actually, you know, manage 
> things?

  No, but I have heard of actual cases where people with basically no
programming experience have been hired as programmers simply because of
incompetent job interviews. (Apparently these people think that they
could secure the job first, and learn the programming part later because,
you know, programming is easy. Any kid can do it, so why not them?)

  This was especially true in the early 90's, where claiming that you know
how to write computer program automatically made you a guru in the eyes of
management and other people in charge of companies (and who knew absolutely
nothing about how computers work). People in charge have probably wisened
up a bit nowadays, at least in average, but I'm sure it still happens quite
a lot.

  The problem with competent programmers, on the other hand, is that not
very surprisingly they tend to lack in social communication skills, which
makes them look bad in job interviews. Even if they would be more than
perfect for the job and would greatly boost the productivity of the company,
they could easily be dismissed because they can't handle the interview
process very convincingly.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 02/23/10 03:24, Invisible wrote:
> It seems the job I've been pinning all my hopes on isn't going to
> materialise after all. For reasons unknown, the agency isn't going to
> put my CV forward. I can only assume I was too greedy and asked for too
> much money.

	You assume too much. There could be lots of reasons - some not having
to do with you.


-- 
Lisa: Oedipus killed his father and married his mother.
Homer: Who payed for THAT wedding?

Post a reply to this message

On 02/23/10 03:54, Invisible wrote:
> I'm going to phone them again tomorrow, and hopefully this time I'll
> have grown enough of a spine to make them TELL ME what's actually going on.

	I don't know how recruiting companies work. Are you currently paying
them? If so, and if they don't seem helpful, tell them to close the
account. If not, merely ask why you should try to find a job through
them, with perhaps a hint that you don't want to continue with them (if
they're being vague with you).

	Don't take my advice too seriously unless someone else here mirrors it
- as I said, I don't know much about such companies.

	As for having trouble speaking on the phone: I used to have that
problem. I'd get stuck even ordering pizza. It helps to prepare certain
phrases in advance - both generic ones and specific to this current job
issue. When trying to ask something, you may have trouble finding a
segway where they'll allow you to speak on that particular topic. So
just prepare saying something (before you call) like "OK. I'm having a
bit of trouble understanding how this process works..." and then proceed
to say what you need to say. It's fairly easy making that statement
pretty much anywhere in the conversation.

	It took me a while (perhaps a few years) of preparing for conversations
like these before calling before I didn't have to do so any more.

	Also, it helps if you don't care too much. I mean, at worst, you won't
be any worse off than you were before.

	Just don't say anything abusive/insulting, which I assume you wouldn't
do anyway...


-- 
Lisa: Oedipus killed his father and married his mother.
Homer: Who payed for THAT wedding?

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4b848fb0$1@news.povray.org...

> issue. When trying to ask something, you may have trouble finding a
> segway

How long were you waiting to segue that in? <g>

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4b8452c3$1@news.povray.org...

> Ah. You've worked for my company then? The company where the entire
> management staff were hired on their ability to spout
> impressive-sounding power-words rather than actually, you know, manage
> things?

Why do you assume spouting impressive-sounding power-word is not a big part
of managing things? And I'm not being sarcastic. Being a manager requires
different qualities than being a labourer (of body or mind). Whether
labourers appreciate those qualities or not is besides the point; such
qualities work for what they do.

Post a reply to this message

>> Ah. You've worked for my company then? The company where the entire
>> management staff were hired on their ability to spout
>> impressive-sounding power-words rather than actually, you know, manage
>> things?
> 
> Why do you assume spouting impressive-sounding power-word is not a big part
> of managing things?

If you're a salesman, being able to sound impressive is probably very 
important.

If, on the other hand, your job is to make strategic decisions on how to 
run the company's UK site, then the ability to spout enough BS to 
convince management that the current disaster somehow isn't your fault 
MAY allow you to hang on to your job, but will do nothing to prevent you 
making mistake after mistake.

Management *does* require different skills. Being able to make things 
look better than they are is only a very small part of that. A much, 
much bigger part is

- Having some clue how the thing you're in charge of actually operates.

- Knowing what options are open to you.

- Understanding what impact your past decisions have had, and having 
some idea what impact future decisions could have.

None of these have anything at all to do with impressive talking.

And yet, management consistently hire managers who talk with arrogant 
over-confidence and promise them the Earth and the stars out of the sky, 
rather than somebody who has a clue.

Post a reply to this message

>> Ah. You've worked for my company then?
> 
>   No, but I have heard of actual cases where people with basically no
> programming experience have been hired as programmers simply because of
> incompetent job interviews.

I'm sure this happens quite a lot. It would be somewhat worrying if 
large companies make this kind of mistake though.

> (Apparently these people think that they
> could secure the job first, and learn the programming part later because,
> you know, programming is easy. Any kid can do it, so why not them?)

I'm sure some people actually think this. ("After all, it's just pushing 
buttons, right?") Others probably know they can't program to save their 
life, but think they can get away with it and still earn pots of money.

I'm not sure exactly which camp the guy I met at uni falls into. One day 
I'm sitting in one of the computer rooms, and this Asian guy comes up to 
me, somehow knows my name, and begs me to "fix my Java". "You Andrew, 
yuh? You know Java? My Java broke - you fix for me? Is only small 
problem. You fix? Yuh?"

I can't decide if the guy was deceitful or delusional, but his "Java" 
consisted of several hopefully-named source files containing text which 
bears a superficial resemblance to Java, but is not, in fact, Java. It 
had curly brackets and semicolons and words like "class" and "public" 
and "double", and a few hopeful-sounding words like "Product" and 
"getName", but I couldn't even begin to guess, as a human being, what 
the hell the assignment was. Syntactic validity? What's that then?

I honestly can't decide if the guy genuinely thought his program was 
nearly working, or he knew full well it was gibberish and was hoping to 
somehow get away with it anyway and earn his qualification. (An MSc, 
apparently. Several other Asian MSc students came to me with the exact 
same proposition, actually. No idea how the hell they knew who I was... 
They didn't seem to pester anyone else!)

>   This was especially true in the early 90's, where claiming that you know
> how to write computer program automatically made you a guru in the eyes of
> management and other people in charge of companies (and who knew absolutely
> nothing about how computers work). People in charge have probably wisened
> up a bit nowadays, at least in average, but I'm sure it still happens quite
> a lot.

Are these the same management-types in the early 90's who thought that 
any company with ".com" in the name would automatically make hundreds of 
trillians of dollars in profit any second now?

A cursory glance at The Daily WTF shows that there are still plenty of 
managers who still have absolutely no clue how computers work.

(One manager commented that a particular program upgrade was "simple" 
because "you only need to add one button". I mean, let's face it, that's 
all a program *is*, right? Some buttons on a screen. It's not like 
there's anything going on behind it or anything like that...)

I like to think that only the stupidest companies and coders end up on 
The Daily WTF. I like to think that only my own employer would be stupid 
enough to hire temp staff for 1 month to do a job which takes 2 months 
of training to learn. I like to think that the human race HAS a 
future... but I'm beginning to wonder.

>   The problem with competent programmers, on the other hand, is that not
> very surprisingly they tend to lack in social communication skills, which
> makes them look bad in job interviews. Even if they would be more than
> perfect for the job and would greatly boost the productivity of the company,
> they could easily be dismissed because they can't handle the interview
> process very convincingly.

I'd like to claim that this is why I don't get hired. Then again, given 
that I have only actually *been* to three job interviews in my entire 
life, I'd say the problem is elsewhere...

Also - not wishing to belittle the fact that some recruiters don't have 
a clue, but in most programming jobs some degree of social skill is 
actually necessary for the job itself.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Are these the same management-types in the early 90's who thought that 
> any company with ".com" in the name would automatically make hundreds of 
> trillians of dollars in profit any second now?

Reminds me of that great ETrade (I think) commercial, that ends "It's not 
1999 any more."  I couldn't find it online tho, as any possible reference 
was overwhelmed with babies.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

>> Are these the same management-types in the early 90's who thought that 
>> any company with ".com" in the name would automatically make hundreds 
>> of trillians of dollars in profit any second now?
> 
> Reminds me of that great ETrade (I think) commercial, that ends "It's 
> not 1999 any more."  I couldn't find it online tho, as any possible 
> reference was overwhelmed with babies.

"Overwhelmed with babies" sounds so utterly terrifying, doesn't it?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > (Apparently these people think that they
> > could secure the job first, and learn the programming part later because,
> > you know, programming is easy. Any kid can do it, so why not them?)

> I'm sure some people actually think this. ("After all, it's just pushing 
> buttons, right?") Others probably know they can't program to save their 
> life, but think they can get away with it and still earn pots of money.

  Which reminds me of this: http://warp.povusers.org/snaps/ad.jpg

  (Kudos if you know where it's from.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> I'm sure some people actually think this. ("After all, it's just pushing 
>> buttons, right?") Others probably know they can't program to save their 
>> life, but think they can get away with it and still earn pots of money.
> 
>   Which reminds me of this: http://warp.povusers.org/snaps/ad.jpg
> 
>   (Kudos if you know where it's from.)

Well *obviously* that's Superman. (IV? The one where Lex Luthor gets Gus 
Gorman to take over the world be stockpiling the world's oil in the 
middle of the Atlantic ocean. Not that I used to watch the VHS three 
times a week when I was a child or *anything* like that...)

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

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Well *obviously* that's Superman.

Dmanit, if you squint close enough, you can see it says "Telephone 
Metropolis" - as in, the fictional city that only exists in the Superman 
universe.

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

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> > Well *obviously* that's Superman.

> Dmanit, if you squint close enough, you can see it says "Telephone 
> Metropolis" - as in, the fictional city that only exists in the Superman 
> universe.

  Yeah, but you got the sequel number wrong.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news: 
4b85931c$1@news.povray.org...
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> Well *obviously* that's Superman.
>
> Dmanit, if you squint close enough, you can see it says "Telephone 
> Metropolis" - as in, the fictional city that only exists in the Superman 
> universe.
>
Eerr don't you know German expressionism films? : Fritz Lang 1927
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_(film)

Marc

Post a reply to this message

>>> Well *obviously* that's Superman.
> 
>   Yeah, but you got the sequel number wrong.

Oh well, never mind. I'm used to failure. (See subject line.)

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

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Oh well, never mind. I'm used to failure. (See subject line.)

  Failure is not the only option.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

M_a_r_c wrote:
> "Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> a écrit dans le message de news: 
> 4b85931c$1@news.povray.org...
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>> Well *obviously* that's Superman.
>> Dmanit, if you squint close enough, you can see it says "Telephone 
>> Metropolis" - as in, the fictional city that only exists in the Superman 
>> universe.
>>
> Eerr don't you know German expressionism films? : Fritz Lang 1927
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_(film)

That is indeed a pretty sweet movie, although I haven't seen the new 
restored version with most of the lost scenes which I hear was recently 
released.

There was also a decent anime of the same name released (based on the 
Fritz Lang film):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_(anime)

Of course, given that the photo is live-action and in color I can't 
think of any possibility for the city of Metropolis other than Superman.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Oh well, never mind. I'm used to failure. (See subject line.)
> 
>   Failure is not the only option.
> 

  That phrase always reminds me of this: 
http://www.angryflower.com/crisis.html

Post a reply to this message

"Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> a écrit dans le message de news: 
4b85f511$1@news.povray.org...
>
> Of course, given that the photo is live-action and in color I can't think 
> of any possibility for the city of Metropolis other than Superman.

Indeed :)
I was just making the point that Metropolis does *not* exist only in 
Superman's universe.

Marc

Post a reply to this message

> Indeed :)
> I was just making the point that Metropolis does *not* exist only in 
> Superman's universe.

This reminds me of when I saw that countdown of the all-time best movie 
robots.

Some of them were good, like Robbie the Robot. Some of them were evil, 
like HAL. All of them were absurdly famous.

But the number one spot, the pinacle of robothood, the jewel in the 
crown, was... was... some robot nobody's ever heard of, from a film 
nobody's ever seen.

And then I looked again at the pannel of judges, and concluded that this 
is probably because they were probably in their teens when Metropolis 
came out in 1874 or whenever it was. :-P

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> And then I looked again at the pannel of judges, and concluded that this 
> is probably because they were probably in their teens when Metropolis 
> came out in 1874 or whenever it was. :-P

  Given that the first commercial exhibition of film took place on 1894,
that's quite unlikely.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Some of them were good, like Robbie the Robot. Some of them were evil, 
> like HAL. All of them were absurdly famous.

HAL wasn't evil.  Just overenthusiastic.

> But the number one spot, the pinacle of robothood, the jewel in the 
> crown, was... was... some robot nobody's ever heard of, from a film 
> nobody's ever seen.

Actually, I would expect that title should go to the star of RUR, the movie 
which invented to word "robot."  :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

>> And then I looked again at the pannel of judges, and concluded that this 
>> is probably because they were probably in their teens when Metropolis 
>> came out in 1874 or whenever it was. :-P
> 
>   Given that the first commercial exhibition of film took place on 1894,
> that's quite unlikely.

 From the look of the short clips they shows, it wouldn't surprise me if 
this film predates commercial filming. :-P

But sure. I just meant that the film is so astonishingly old that almost 
nobody will have ever heard of it. I very much doubt that the date I 
randomly picked out of the air happens to be anywhere near the real 
release date.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Some of them were good, like Robbie the Robot. Some of them were evil, 
>> like HAL. All of them were absurdly famous.
> 
> HAL wasn't evil.  Just overenthusiastic.
> 

Thus spake Zaraprogrammer :-)


>> But the number one spot, the pinacle of robothood, the jewel in the 
>> crown, was... was... some robot nobody's ever heard of, from a film 
>> nobody's ever seen.
> 
> Actually, I would expect that title should go to the star of RUR, the 
> movie which invented to word "robot."  :-)
> 

I always liked Tobor the Great.
BTW robot is Tobor spelt backwards ;)


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> 
> But sure. I just meant that the film is so astonishingly old that almost 
> nobody will have ever heard of it.

This is absolutely not true.  Fritz Lang's Metropolis is *far* from 
obscure, and is probably one of the better known "classic" movies out 
there.  Sure, if you only watch movies that you've had a chance to see 
in the theater you won't have seen it, but in that case you wouldn't 
have watched Casablanca, Citizen Cane, Modern Times, etc. either.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
>> HAL wasn't evil.  Just overenthusiastic.
> Thus spake Zaraprogrammer :-)

It's explained quite well in the book, really. :)  No more evil than a 
general sending soldiers on a mission where he knows they'll die. Not *good* 
mind you...

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The question in today's corporate environment is not
   so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
   "what color is your nose?"

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>>> HAL wasn't evil.  Just overenthusiastic.
>> Thus spake Zaraprogrammer :-)
> 
> It's explained quite well in the book, really. :)  No more evil than a 
> general sending soldiers on a mission where he knows they'll die. Not 
> *good* mind you...
> 

Yes, how can a machine be evil?

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> > Stephen wrote:
> >>> HAL wasn't evil.  Just overenthusiastic.
> >> Thus spake Zaraprogrammer :-)
> > 
> > It's explained quite well in the book, really. :)  No more evil than a 
> > general sending soldiers on a mission where he knows they'll die. Not 
> > *good* mind you...
> > 

> Yes, how can a machine be evil?

  Many scifi books explore the idea that machines are not good or evil,
but completely neutral. Their problem is that they are too logical, and
when given contradictory directives, they will try to come up with a solution
which fulfills all of them at the same time. IIRC that was the case with
2001: A Space Odyssey as well as many books by Asimov (and one of the ideas
behind the so-called "zeroth law of robotics" in his books).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Many scifi books explore the idea that machines are not good or evil,
> but completely neutral. Their problem is that they are too logical, and
> when given contradictory directives, they will try to come up with a solution
> which fulfills all of them at the same time. IIRC that was the case with
> 2001: A Space Odyssey as well as many books by Asimov (and one of the ideas
> behind the so-called "zeroth law of robotics" in his books).
> 

Ah! The good Doctor and his Gentle Reader along with Arthur C Clarke 
were the favourite authors of my childhood.

You would know better than me about error and infinite loop trapping.
Still how can a fulcrum be evil?

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> It seems the job I've been pinning all my hopes on isn't going to 
> materialise after all. For reasons unknown, the agency isn't going to 
> put my CV forward. I can only assume I was too greedy and asked for too 
> much money.

On Monday, a recruiter phoned me and said he wanted to put my CV forward 
for a job offering... £28k. So apparently it's a reasonable sum to ask 
for, even in MK.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> On Monday, a recruiter phoned me and said he wanted to put my CV forward 
> for a job offering... £28k. So apparently it's a reasonable sum to ask 
> for, even in MK.

Woah, wait a sec... I have a telephone interview tomorrow! o_O

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:25:01 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> Invisible wrote:
> 
>> It seems the job I've been pinning all my hopes on isn't going to
>> materialise after all. For reasons unknown, the agency isn't going to
>> put my CV forward. I can only assume I was too greedy and asked for too
>> much money.
> 
> On Monday, a recruiter phoned me and said he wanted to put my CV forward
> for a job offering... £28k. So apparently it's a reasonable sum to ask
> for, even in MK.

Sounds like a positive development. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:47:12 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> Invisible wrote:
> 
>> On Monday, a recruiter phoned me and said he wanted to put my CV
>> forward for a job offering... £28k. So apparently it's a reasonable sum
>> to ask for, even in MK.
> 
> Woah, wait a sec... I have a telephone interview tomorrow! o_O

You'll do fine. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> 
>> On Monday, a recruiter phoned me and said he wanted to put my CV 
>> forward for a job offering... £28k. So apparently it's a reasonable 
>> sum to ask for, even in MK.
> 
> Woah, wait a sec... I have a telephone interview tomorrow! o_O

Well done, try to take it on a land line much better than having an 
interview on a mobile. Have a cup of something to hand and your CV so 
you can refer to the lies you told. :)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> Have a cup of something to hand and your CV so 
> you can refer to the lies you told. :)

Oh. Yeah, that would be a good idea. Hmm, I wonder if I can get my CV 
back off Monster...

Post a reply to this message

>> Have a cup of something to hand and your CV so you can refer to the 
>> lies you told. :)
> 
> Oh. Yeah, that would be a good idea. Hmm, I wonder if I can get my CV 
> back off Monster...

Oh goodie. I can't remember my password. >_<

(If I was at home, I'd have it written down...)

Fortunately the post I made here last month with a draft of my CV hasn't 
expired yet. I don't think I changed it *that* much since then...

It's all going swimmingly. :-/

Post a reply to this message

> Fortunately the post I made here last month with a draft of my CV hasn't 
> expired yet. I don't think I changed it *that* much since then...
>
> It's all going swimmingly. :-/

I find it helps to have an "extended" copy of CV to hand, ie one that has 
some notes and memory joggers added to the bits they are likely to ask 
about.  When in an interview on the phone it's surprisingly easy for your 
mind to just go blank.

Also having a copy of the job description to hand is good, again including 
notes about how/why you fit in for each of their requirements/skills.

Take advantage of the fact that it's on the phone, in that they can't see 
what you're doing or what documents you are reading from :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Fortunately the post I made here last month with a draft of my CV 
>> hasn't expired yet. I don't think I changed it *that* much since then...
>>
>> It's all going swimmingly. :-/
> 
> I find it helps to have an "extended" copy of CV to hand, ie one that 
> has some notes and memory joggers added to the bits they are likely to 
> ask about.  When in an interview on the phone it's surprisingly easy for 
> your mind to just go blank.
> 
> Also having a copy of the job description to hand is good, again 
> including notes about how/why you fit in for each of their 
> requirements/skills.
> 
> Take advantage of the fact that it's on the phone, in that they can't 
> see what you're doing or what documents you are reading from :-)
> 
> 

Good ideas.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> Good ideas.

Yeah. I'll have to remember all of those for next time around...

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Take advantage of the fact that it's on the phone, in that they can't see
> what you're doing or what documents you are reading from :-)

But no matter how much you try, they *can* hear typing. They will probably 
know if you're searching on Google every technical question they ask you :)

Post a reply to this message

>> Take advantage of the fact that it's on the phone, in that they can't see
>> what you're doing or what documents you are reading from :-)
> 
> But no matter how much you try, they *can* hear typing. They will probably 
> know if you're searching on Google every technical question they ask you :)

Oh, that's *advanced*! I wouldn't even have thought of that. :-D

(But that's because I _already_ know stuff about Active Directory, so I 
don't need to look it up. ;-) )

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

Post a reply to this message

>> Woah, wait a sec... I have a telephone interview tomorrow! o_O
> 
> You'll do fine. :-)

Negative. I just got the email confirming that they're not interested. 
*sigh*

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

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:46:43 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> Woah, wait a sec... I have a telephone interview tomorrow! o_O
>> 
>> You'll do fine. :-)
> 
> Negative. I just got the email confirming that they're not interested.
> *sigh*

Either way you'll do fine - you've got more experience.

Did they give you a reason?  If not, ask them.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:46:43 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
>>>> Woah, wait a sec... I have a telephone interview tomorrow! o_O
>>> You'll do fine. :-)
>> Negative. I just got the email confirming that they're not interested.
>> *sigh*
> 
> Either way you'll do fine - you've got more experience.
> 
> Did they give you a reason?  If not, ask them.

No specific complaints; somebody better applied.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:50:34 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:46:43 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> 
>>>>> Woah, wait a sec... I have a telephone interview tomorrow! o_O
>>>> You'll do fine. :-)
>>> Negative. I just got the email confirming that they're not interested.
>>> *sigh*
>> 
>> Either way you'll do fine - you've got more experience.
>> 
>> Did they give you a reason?  If not, ask them.
> 
> No specific complaints; somebody better applied.

Ask them what you could do to become a stronger candidate.  Couldn't hurt 
to find out and that would give you something actionable to work on.

Jim

Post a reply to this message