 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Let people know that you're not afraid of taking on new challenges, and
>> that you have what it /really/ takes for that: The will and ability to
>> learn.
> I've always wondered about this. I would think that most every applicant for an
> IT position, especially those with limited formal training or experience in the
> specific technologies required for the job, will make this claim. How do you
> provide evidence that, in your case, you're not wildly exaggerating or outright
> lying about having this skill?
This.
The fact that fizzbuzz even needs to exist in the first place... scares me.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> You know someone, and they recommend a position for you. If you were willing
> to move to where someone on p.o-t lives, there would probably be people
> offering you jobs based on what they know of you here.
>
This. Looking back on it, most of the positions I've held, including those
while I was active duty in the military, I got through word-of-mouth referral,
despite the fact that I suck at networking.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/08/2012 09:09 PM, waggy wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> You know someone, and they recommend a position for you. If you were willing
>> to move to where someone on p.o-t lives, there would probably be people
>> offering you jobs based on what they know of you here.
>>
> This. Looking back on it, most of the positions I've held, including those
> while I was active duty in the military, I got through word-of-mouth referral,
> despite the fact that I suck at networking.
...right... so given that I don't know anybody, I should just give up
now? Is that what you're saying?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (There's a face-to-face interview plus a C++ coding test first. I'll
>> presumably fail that.)
>
> That's bullshit thinking. Stop that. From my experience, such "coding
> tests" are merely there to filter out people who do know the syntax but
> don't have the slightest clues about algorithm design, performance
> issues and so forth.
>
> For instance, they might ask you to write a small function to compute
> factorials. Someone might program this as a recursion because he
> happened to come across it as an example in the "programming for
> dummies" section on recursion.
/Sometimes/ it's a trivial test. Sometimes it's very intense. It's
difficult to know until you get there.
I'm sure I told you guys about the SQL test I took once. The one with
tasks such as "list all customers in alphabetical order"...
>> I'm ambivalent as to whether this is actually the best strategy. On one
>> hand, the more stuff I apply to, the more likely it is that somebody
>> will call me. OTOH, if I apply for something totally unsuitable, and the
>> recruiter phones me, they're not going to be amused at having their time
>> wasted.
>
> Best thing is if you do inform yourself about what the company actually
> does, and which of your skills might be of interest to them. (And don't
> just think "this particular job", but "this particular company" - they
> might have other opportunities available.) Then, when applying,
> emphasize those skills. (Don't forget the "soft skills"!)
When you see a job advertised, you don't know who the company is. (If
you did, you could just phone them up, and then the agency wouldn't get
As to whether trawling jobs websites for advertised positions is the
best option... well, that remains to be seen.
I am on a mission to stalk the OU. (Fat lot of good it's done me so
far...) Oh, and Google. Because, you know, it's Google. But /everybody/
wants to work there, so there's no particular reason to believe they'll
ever hire me.
>> And than there's Network Rail. A friend
>> of mine works there and insists it's the best job in the world... But
>> they have ZERO computer jobs listed.
>
> Ask your friend to dig around what they've got cooking wrt IT.
She says "keep looking". Uh, yeah. That's not much help.
> Do apply
> for a job at companies you'd probably enjoy working for, even if they
> don't seem to offer jobs right now. They might just happen to ponder
> hiring someone - or they may the moment they read your CV. You know, you
> can't actually lose anything, can you?
Finding good companies to work for is nontrivial. Figuring out how to
apply to them when nothing is advertised is intractable. If you send
them a letter, they'll just be like "why didn't this guy bother to look
at what's advertised?"
> And by all means, get rid of that "I'll probably fail" attitude. You
> CANNOT LOSE at a job interview (or when sending in your CV, or whatever).
Last I heard, /most/ people fail at /most/ interviews. It takes many
hundred thousand interviews before a hire occurs. Which, given that so
far I've been to 2 interviews this lifetime, doesn't bode well...
(Unrelated: Apparently Bode is also the name of a type of chart used in
signal processing, invented by Hendrik Wade Bode...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/08/2012 06:46 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 8/4/2012 9:03, clipka wrote:
>> are merely there to filter out people who do know the syntax but don't
>> have
>> the slightest clues about algorithm design, performance issues and so
>> forth.
>
> They work pretty well for filtering out people who, amazingly, have been
> programming for 20+ years and can't (for example) write a program to
> print out the first 50 prime numbers. We wouldn't have fizzbuzz if we
> were filtering out people who knew syntax but not algorithms.
When I went to my second interview, the interviewer asked me to take a
simple SQL test. Before the test, he didn't seem very keen on hiring me.
After the test, he was absolutely hyped. He was actually sitting there
having a verbal monologue with himself, out loud, trying to decide how
he could hire me.
The test was laughably trivial. Anybody who's read Chapter 1 of SQL for
Dummies would have aced this test. It was literally "do you know what
SELECT, WHERE, ORDER BY and GROUP do?" And yet, the interviewer told me,
with a straight face, that "I have people walk in here telling me they
have 20+ years' SQL experience and they can't do /any/ of that test!"
And that was the day I realised that unlike me, /some/ people must be
utterly LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH. O_O
Jesus....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.08.2012 20:44, schrieb waggy:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>> Let people know that you're not afraid of taking on new challenges, and
>> that you have what it /really/ takes for that: The will and ability to
>> learn.
> I've always wondered about this. I would think that most every applicant for an
> IT position, especially those with limited formal training or experience in the
> specific technologies required for the job, will make this claim. How do you
> provide evidence that, in your case, you're not wildly exaggerating or outright
> lying about having this skill?
Step #1: Make them invite you for a job interview. This is admittedly
not always easy.
Step #2: In the interview, be open, don't wear a mask; let them feel
that you're not hiding anything and that your word can be trusted. Be
active, don't just sit there answering their questions - proactively
shove your relevant skills into their face (figuratively speaking :-)).
Don't hesitate to talk about stuff you did for fun, and how it relates
to the job you're applying for. Let them feel that you'd be eager to get
/this/ particular job.
> For example, I have no formal training in any programming language. I could
> list URLs to a few web applications I've written for my own amusement using PHP,
> JavaScript, SVG, and CSS (the last three now known collectively as HTML5),
> provide a research-quality Octave/MatLab engineering application, and provide a
> (beta version) production-quality Fortran 95 plugin for a commercial
> application. I could even show them a patch to add some functions to POV-Ray in
> C, and a whole lot more, attempting to demonstrate that I can program in just
> about anything, despite having held down only one "real job" for about two of
> the past twenty-five years.
>
> How does one work this into the process without coming off as a lying jerk?
Turn your problem (not having had many "real jobs") to your advantage:
You've done a hell lot of stuff for fun, which proves that (A) you're
very good at teaching yourself new things, and that (B) you /love/ to
program. And having cranked out research- or even production-quality
stuff along the way obviously shows that (C) you're very good at drawing
long-term motivation out of this type of pastime.
If you want them to take notice of - and believe - all this, why not
proactively offer to show them what you've done?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.08.2012 22:46, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> The test was laughably trivial. Anybody who's read Chapter 1 of SQL for
> Dummies would have aced this test. It was literally "do you know what
> SELECT, WHERE, ORDER BY and GROUP do?" And yet, the interviewer told me,
> with a straight face, that "I have people walk in here telling me they
> have 20+ years' SQL experience and they can't do /any/ of that test!"
>
> And that was the day I realised that unlike me, /some/ people must be
> utterly LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH. O_O
"SQL experience? Yeah, the system we were using was based on some SQL
database. Check."
Yes, that happens.
Congratulations, you just discovered another soft skill of yours:
Honesty and trustworthiness.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 04/08/2012 09:09 PM, waggy wrote:
> > Darren New wrote:
> >> You know someone, and they recommend a position for you. If you were willing
> >> to move to where someone on p.o-t lives, there would probably be people
> >> offering you jobs based on what they know of you here.
> >>
> > This. Looking back on it, most of the positions I've held, including those
> > while I was active duty in the military, I got through word-of-mouth referral,
> > despite the fact that I suck at networking.
>
> ...right... so given that I don't know anybody, I should just give up
> now? Is that what you're saying?
Absolutely not. I have no intention of giving job-hunting advice here. I suck
at finding a job even more than I suck at networking. That's why I have an
interest in your saga.
I failed to find a job for a year after receiving my undergraduate degree in
civil engineering, that's why I'm back in school. It didn't help that the
economy melted down shortly before I graduated, or that my best contacts in the
civil engineering department left or retired, some in disgrace.
I got my current position because, after being accepted into several graduate
programs, I went and talked with someone in each program to decide which to
attend. While talking with the (then) chair of the mechanical engineering
department, he picked up the phone and called someone (now my advisor), leaving
a message along the lines of, "I have someone here who seems like a good fit for
that research position you have open."
Despite sucking at networking, that's how I landed my current position. Strange
things happen.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 14:44:06 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> I'm ambivalent as to whether this is actually the best strategy. On one
> hand, the more stuff I apply to, the more likely it is that somebody
> will call me. OTOH, if I apply for something totally unsuitable, and the
> recruiter phones me, they're not going to be amused at having their time
> wasted.
The best strategy is volume. The outplacement service I was provided
with during my layoff last year provided information about searching for
a job being a full-time job unto itself.
R.I.C.H. – (Resumes, Interviews, Contacts, Hours)
This is what they describe the process as - it's about volume, sending
resumes, getting interviews, getting contacts, and putting in the hours.
Given the quality of job descriptions, don't rely on the description to
tell you whether or not it's suitable or not. That's what the recruiter
is there for. That's what they get paid to do - to identify potential
matches for a position. They spend their days talking to people who are
and who are not suitable for the position - and they're usually good at
helping the candidate identify whether or not they're a good fit for the
position or not.
Recruiters generally won't be angry about having their time wasted by
unqualified candidates. They get paid to properly identify the qualified
and unqualified candidates. So being a bad fit isn't your problem to
solve. It's their job to make that determination.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.08.2012 22:43, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> I'm sure I told you guys about the SQL test I took once. The one with
> tasks such as "list all customers in alphabetical order"...
Actually, I'm sure to really /win/ such tests, you need to fire a few
questions at them right in return, such as what collation scheme they
want to sort by. THEN offer to them to solve the simple task of using
the database's default collation scheme.
>>> I'm ambivalent as to whether this is actually the best strategy. On one
>>> hand, the more stuff I apply to, the more likely it is that somebody
>>> will call me. OTOH, if I apply for something totally unsuitable, and the
>>> recruiter phones me, they're not going to be amused at having their time
>>> wasted.
>>
>> Best thing is if you do inform yourself about what the company actually
>> does, and which of your skills might be of interest to them. (And don't
>> just think "this particular job", but "this particular company" - they
>> might have other opportunities available.) Then, when applying,
>> emphasize those skills. (Don't forget the "soft skills"!)
>
> When you see a job advertised, you don't know who the company is. (If
> you did, you could just phone them up, and then the agency wouldn't get
Then phone the agency and try to find out as much about the company as
they're willing to leak.
Rule #1: BE PROACTIVE. Don't just take what is shoved into your face.
> As to whether trawling jobs websites for advertised positions is the
> best option... well, that remains to be seen.
>
> I am on a mission to stalk the OU. (Fat lot of good it's done me so
> far...) Oh, and Google. Because, you know, it's Google. But /everybody/
> wants to work there, so there's no particular reason to believe they'll
> ever hire me.
You're as good a choice as all the other suckers out there. In Germany
we say, "they're all cooking with water".
> Finding good companies to work for is nontrivial. Figuring out how to
> apply to them when nothing is advertised is intractable. If you send
> them a letter, they'll just be like "why didn't this guy bother to look
> at what's advertised?"
Did you try?
And even if you were right, they'd just trash your application and
forget about you. Nothing lost.
> Last I heard, /most/ people fail at /most/ interviews. It takes many
> hundred thousand interviews before a hire occurs. Which, given that so
> far I've been to 2 interviews this lifetime, doesn't bode well...
Nonsense. The #1 reason for failing at an interview is not wanting to be
hired in the first place. The #2 reason (and often related) is having
thrown out applications indiscriminately like spam: Most won't reach a
suitable target. Be more selective, and you can cut down on the number
by orders of magnitude without any disadvantage.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
