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

Polytropon freebsd at edvax.de
Sat Apr 28 05:41:26 UTC 2012

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:46:52 -0400, Jerry wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:58:40 -0600
> Chad Perrin articulated:
> >On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:57:10PM -0400, Jerry wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:32:24 -0600 Chad Perrin articulated:
> >> >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.
> >> 
> >> No, I think they should learn the one(s) most sought after in their
> >> chosen field. If 90% of the potential openings in a specific field
> >> are requesting proficiency with MS Word, what do you think any
> >> legitimate applicants should become proficient in?
> >
> >Right -- because all the keywords you need will always be Microsoft
> >Word.
> >
> >Admit it: you're just making up half-baked excuses to disagree now.
> If the requirement is for proficiency in MS Word, Excel or whatever and
> you lack those skills then you are not qualified for the job. Period.

There are two problems "hidden":

1. You typically cannot learn proprietary products for free.
Of course there are books and online material to help you, but
you cannot try the software. You have to buy it, and you have
to buy the OS that supports it. There is no (legal) way for
autodidacts to make theirselves familiar by "learning and doing".

2. There are many different versions, so when you encounter
"Microsoft Word" as a required skill, you cannot be sure that
the skill _you_ have will be the right one. You know that
products like "Word" differ from version to version. And of
course they highly differ from established and standardized
ways of doing things, so your generic knowledge (e. g. acquired
by "learning and doing" OpenOffice or StarOffice or Abiword)
isn't fully portable simply because of the arbitraryness of how
"Word" does things.

But let's rest the "Word" case. There is other software much more
expensive and far less present on home systems to "do and learn".
Oracle databases, Enterprise Java Frameworks or SAP are just a few
examples. There are _courses_ that you can attend in order to learn
more. For example, such courses cost 2000-10,000 Euro here. This
is nothing that "poor" people can afford, even though they are
highly skilled "IT nerds".

> If those skills are the ones most requested then the applicant should
> learn them. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

I fully agree with you here. If the employer is _precise_ on what
he expects, you can "trim" your resume or your skill profile to
make a good match. You can even acquire requested skills (if
possible). However, at least on the german job market you won't
find such situations. As I wrote in a previous message, externalized
HR services do most of the pre-employment work, and they are not
very specific in their application requirements they publish.
"Programmer" and "Office" can mean anything.

> If a job required
> proficiency with 3+ years minimum experience in c++ and you only had
> knowledge of Pascal, would you still believe you were qualified?

Depends. If your intelligency is high enough, your ability to
learn and to conclude is good, then maybe you have the chance
to learn the required C++ skills that are _equivalent_ to 3+
years of experience. But that's only an assumption, and you will
face the problem that you cannot "prove" it (by shiny paper
with signature and rubber stamp).

> >> >2. Lying is bad.  Go fall in a hole, now.
> >> 
> >> Yes, but it is never-the-less the norm on way too many resumes. I
> >> have read where it is estimated that 1 out of every 3 is either a
> >> gross over statement of fact or just a complete fabrication. My own
> >> (original) resume, written by a professional resume writer many
> >> years ago, absolutely astounded me. I had no idea I was as
> >> proficient and skilled in so many areas. As the writer explained, it
> >> is not what you say but how you say it. Just because I once wrote a
> >> two page article that got published in a cheap magazine does not
> >> mean that I am an accomplished author with numerous credits to my
> >> name -- or does it?
> >
> >No, it doesn't.  Maybe "an accomplished author with one credit" to your
> >name.  Amusingly, that'll turn out to be a great way for employers to
> >notice you're exaggerating with that "accopmlished author" bit, too.
> >Only by lying ("numerous credits") can you allay suspicions for a
> >moment in those credulous enough to not ask for samples (which
> >absolutely does not make it okay).
> Now you are being naive. There are numerous examples of people in both
> corporate and government jobs that have made out right lies as to
> their education, etcetera. Some of those frauds have gone undetected
> for years. The majority of resumes for entry level jobs are rarely if
> ever given more than a perfunctory look.

Again, I fully agree with you. "Selling yourself" on the HR market
includes the typical aspects of selling you'll find in consumer
products. For example, in marketing... let's say a tablet, the
manufacturer doesn't say you cannot remove the battery (which will
be flat line after 1 year of use), and the device will be unsupported
after 2 years of use; no, the manufacturer will only show positive
aspects of the tablet: it's shiny, slim, lightweight, entertaining
and so on. He will also exxagerate, e. g. it's the world's most
popular, future-proof, revolutionary and so on.

Doing something _comparable_ is fully valid in applications. Of
course there's also fraud to be noticed, e. g. doctors who haven't
studied medicine (happened in Germany), people who are dumb as
bread and too stupid to hammer a nail into the wall, but being
awarded "manager of the year" and applying for an important
position. In the end, maybe they'll be successful in their
positions, but in many cases (and I also wrote this before)
you'll find people in workplaces they are _not remotely_
qualified for.

Employers have recognized that. They've risen the barrier for
entry. Even lower-end jobs now require higher levels of education.
For example, I've recently encountered a job offer for a thing
called "virtualization administrator (system administrator)"
which turned out to be phone 1st level support. The requirement
however was: university degree or professional education with
experience. Interesting for something that even Timmy Dumbass
could do: Read questions from a flowchart and mark the YES/NO
answers before transfering the call to 2nd level. Of couse I
don't have to tell you that this particular job won't be paid
as other jobs typically done by people successfully leaving a
university. This particular job was underpaid.

> The bottom line is if you want a job, you either learn or acquire the
> criteria required for the job, or find a way to BS your way into it
> and hope you can pull it off. No legitimate employer is going to change
> his criteria to accommodate your skills.

Employers often have strange expectations. I also wrote that
some of them, because a "shortage of skilled programmers",
suddenly want the "geek" (who trained himself lots of programming
languages and development methods in his free time), but they
want him to have certificates and university degrees. Reality
shows that the _really_, I mean ***REALLY*** good programmers
often don't have any degrees at all, sometimes even no professional
education! Those promising candidates drop out at the beginning if
they don't "improve" their CV or resume. It's the only chance they
can turn their knowledge and experience into money (by being
employed by a boss who _recognizes_ what he can get). Needless
to say that such skills aren't taught in schools, universities,
professional education and IT courses. You can only teach them
to yourself.

Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list