editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U

[Chad Perrin]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:32:24AM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 06:43:06PM -0400, Jerry wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:52:56 -0600 Chad Perrin articulated:
> > >On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 02:45:53PM -0700, David Brodbeck wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> Generic skills aren't recognized because they're hard to judge and
> > >> test for.  People want quantifiable, objective things to weed out
> > >> applicants.  This is also why credit scoring has become so popular --
> > >> sure, someone's credit score may not tell whether they'd be a good
> > >> employee or not, but it's a convenient, objective way to throw out a
> > >> bunch of resumes.
> > >
> > >Indeed -- and the employer who bucks this trend does him/her self a
> > >huge service, because large numbers of very skilled and/or talented
> > >people are being rejected on entirely arbitrary criteria that have
> > >little or no correlation to their ability to do the job.  People who
> > >use such critera are forcing themselves to compete with everyone else
> > >in the industry using the same criteria, leaving a glut of job
> > >candidates who would be great at the job waiting for someone else to
> > >give them a chance.
> > 
> > Wouldn't it be far easier for this "glut of job applicants" to either
> > become proficient in the skills stated in the job description for which
> > they are applying or do what everyone else does; i.e. lie on their
> > résumé. If the mountain will not come to Mahomet, Mahomet must go to
> > the mountain.
> 
> 1. Pretty much every employer has a slightly different list of keywords.
> I guess you think all these job candidates should learn every skill in
> the world.
> 
> 2. Lying is bad.  Go fall in a hole, now.

I appear to have forgotten about point 3.

3. This was about employers going to the mountain, by the way, so your
point is null and void in any case.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]