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

[Chad Perrin]

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 08:01:13AM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:36:13 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 06:00:51PM -0400, Jerry wrote:
> > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:33:29 -0700 David Brodbeck articulated:
> > > >
> > > >Again, this is one of the reasons credit scoring is becoming so
> > > >popular -- it's an almost automatic way to narrow down the pile.
> > > >Another method in common use right now is to throw out applications
> > > >from anyone who's currently unemployed, and only look at ones who
> > > >already have a position and are looking to change jobs.
> > > 
> > > I have been told by several people in HR that the trend to give
> > > preference to those all ready working as opposed to the unemployed is
> > > based on the philosophy that if no one else will hire them, then why
> > > should we. While we could argue whether that logic is flawed, it is
> > > never-the-less presently in use. However, it doesn't really pertain to
> > > entry level openings. With the glut of individuals entering the job
> > > market, for an applicant to not be proficient in the skills being
> > > advertised for by the prospective employer is just a waste of time. If
> > > the employer is looking for skill "A" and "B", crying to him/her that
> > > you have skill "C" is just a waste of both your times.
> > 
> > It *does* pertain to "entry level" positions, because (from what I have
> > seen) most "entry level" positions come with an experience requirement of
> > at least two years.
> 
> But then this would invalidate "ENTRY level". How exactly is
> an applicant supposed to get a job from that "entry level" pool
> when he doesn't have previous experience because he simply wants
> to ENTER that field of profession?

Yes -- that is *exactly* the question that comes up.  These are not jobs
that are "entry level" in terms of requirements, even if they are "entry
level" in terms of pay and actual skill required to do the job to a
reasonable level of competence.  Consider examples like first-level call
center jobs that require a college degree and a couple years expericence,
as pretty much the canonical example.

In some cases, these jobs may simple be advertised this way so hiring
managers can use the lack of "qualified" applicants to help justify
offshoring jobs.  In other cases, this is just an example of how HR "best
practices" have gotten ridiculously out of control, where everybody tries
to copy what everyone else is doing because if everyone else is doing it
you can't get in trouble for doing the same thing.  The end result, of
course, is that you only get people with experience who nobody else wants
to hire or people who lie well -- but on paper it looks like you went to
great lengths to hire the "right" person, and thus you (hopefully) can't
be blamed for hiring turkeys.


> >
> > You speak as though you think they're correctly identifying the skills
> > they actually need from their employees.  A big part of this entire
> > discussion has been about the fact that many "responsible" parties in the
> > hiring process are utterly without capacity for correctly identifying the
> > skills they actually need to optimally fill the open positions.
> 
> Correct, at least that's my experience. To give you _few_ examples
> which are more the norm than exceptions:
> 
> "good MS standart knowledge"
> (Yavoll mein Hare Heiny Standart-Leader von Sowercrowd!)
> 
> "programming knowledge in established programming languages, e. g. OS2"
> (cc hello.os2, and it's OS/2 with slash)
> 
> "modern Microsoft operating systems (Windows 98 and XP)"
> (yes, _very_ modern and current; hey, it's more than 10 years old!)
> 
> "extended basic knowledge"
> (so what, basic or extended?)
> 
> "autonomous team-oriented working"
> (maybe as a one man team!)
> 
> It's "funny" when you encounter job offers by recruiters and HR
> services who _fail_ to properly spell our native language, but
> think they are in a positition to place _you_ (as a professional)
> into a good job! Okay, it's NOT funny. It's also not funny if you
> have to explain to such a "senior consultant permanent placement"
> how to open a PDF file containing your application documents, and
> it's even worse when they try to trick you to do their work, e. g.
> enter all your data again into their (!) HR database.
> 
> As I said, the problem of the unclear expression _what_ skills
> actually are needed can make it hard to properly apply for a job.
> This problem isn't only present for written application, it's also
> there if you get invited to an interview and the guy across the
> table is simply asking the wrong questions, or unable to understand
> your answers.

I think a far worse problem than the failure to understand what skills
are needed is the failure to understand things like

1. what skills can be learned easily in a very short period of time so
that focus on other necessary skills already existing can be employed in
selecting candidates

2. why disqualifying candidates for stupidities that have nothing to do
with their skills and other actually suitable qualities for the job is
counterproductive

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