Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:27:41 +0200 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: editor that understands CTRL/B, CTRL/I, CTRL/U Message-ID: <20120427072741.190e2408.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <CAHhngE0OX=b15XSVh89kOurh_6riaL-L5oT_E%2B52Onyhsx7rQw@mail.gmail.com> References: <20120424175026.GD1303@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <201204241833.q3OIXwTR013401@mail.r-bonomi.com> <20120424190227.GA1773@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <20120425053133.e920b091.freebsd@edvax.de> <20120425064507.GA4673@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <20120425085555.36f91b3a.freebsd@edvax.de> <CAHhngE0OX=b15XSVh89kOurh_6riaL-L5oT_E%2B52Onyhsx7rQw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:45:53 -0700, David Brodbeck wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> wrote:
> > Thanks for that article, it's really sad. One of the main
> > problems is (in my opinion) that GENERIC SKILLS aren't
> > recognozed with the big importane they have.
>=20
> This applies to hiring as well as education. When they read a job
> application, HR people seem to basically do keyword matching. They
> don't know or care about generic skills.=20
That's a shortsightet view, especially when you consider the
typical lifecyle of software. Being "educated" on one specific
version that doesn't share many similarities with competitor's
products or own follow-up versions, you're lost.
Generic skills (such as "generic Linux and UNIX skills") enable
you to become familiar with _any_ Unix-like operating system
very quickly, and in a world software changing dayly this is
an important skill.
Additionally, generic skills enable you to learn _anything_
quickly, such as a new scripting language, or a DTP application.
They all share generic concepts (like some kind of syntax for
a programming language, or some kind of UI design for a GUI
based program).
And you're right: HR people don't do more than keyword matching.
That's the only thing they have time for.
> If the posting says
> 'Microsoft Word experience' the words 'Microsoft Word' better appear
> somewhere in the resume.=20
It's even worse. There are some "standardized skill profiles"
(which aren't standardized) that one is expected to include.
I currently have an example here. It contains >100 times the
word "Microsoft", but lacks essential stuff that one would
assume when applying for a job as a virtualisation / system
administrator. Some non-MICROS~1 stuff is mentioned in footnotes,
most of it even improperly spelled or not attributed to the
proper company.
For example, if you're familiar with StarOffice, OpenOffice and
LibreOffice (which you can acquire knowledge in _for free_), you
should be able to conclude how the MICROS~1 products work, any
version of them (even though they are very different and incon-
sistent, and you _cannot_ learn them for free). So this would
match the skill "office applications", but maybe because the
word "Microsoft" doesn't appear several times, this skill is
rejected.
This also works with commercial UNIXes that are hard to try
for free. But with your generic skills, you can find out how
things work, because the basics are the same everywhere. You
can even install "Hercules" on your FreeBSD machine and find
out how an IBM /360 mainframe is operated - teaching you basic
skills how to deal with z/OS, CMS, TSO, REXX, ISPF and other
(primarily commercial) applications you might encounter).
> Likewise, if they want experience with a
> particular programming language, you'd better have experience with
> THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE...never mind if you already know five and can
> pick up another in a week's time.
That is correct. But being able to do so depends on the
employer to _publish_ his expectations in an understandable
format. In a setting where job applications are typically
filtered by an external HR company which _also_ makes the
job announcement, you'll hardly find them. Instead, there's
lots of blahblah like "we're an established company", "a
prominent market leader" or "young and dynamic expanding
service provider" - and then "programmer" or "system
administrator". You often don't find any hint who the _real_
employer would be. And in the end, it turns out that they
are searching for a phone monkey in 1st level customer
support. :-)
> Generic skills aren't recognized because they're hard to judge and
> test for.=20
Hard to judge - no, but only by "try and watch" which often
is not possible or not intended.
Hard to test for - true, as proper test would have to be
developed first, and I assume that's rather expensive.
There are generic tests like FizzBuzz, but it doesn't say
_that_ much, and it's not enough to use _only_ this test.
However, it's a nice "fall-through" test if you want to
hire a programmer and he doesn't get it done by any programming
language _he_ may choose. :-)
Generic skills are _the_ skills you need to learn something
new. Stupidly repeating things doesn't work. Being tied to
"the one" way of doing things doesn't fit a quickly changing
world. You can't "rely on" vendor lock-in everywhere.
> People want quantifiable, objective things to weed out
> applicants.=20
They often _assume_ that this is provided by colorful paper,
typically hanging on a wall in your back, the "wall of fame".
There are many certificates that state you actually know
something, but there are more than enough that just cost
money, and you get them, no matter what you know ("certificate
spam", if I may say that) - those are _worthless_.
I think "objective" is very hard to find here. Many considerations
depend on assumptions and expectations. For example, you want
a programmer. You don't state for what precisely (kind of project
and programming language). In the end, it turns out to be some
proprietary system where even _learning_ it costs lots of money
because there is not much public stuff for autodidacts (and of
course no way to try it for free). You expect a "kind of geek"
(because that's the established stereotype for a good and skilled
programmer), but you expect him to "obey corporate dresscode".
You expect him to work in an environment he may not feel
comfortable (e. g. proprietary environment, fixed working times,
I mean, come on, that's so 1900-ish). He should be between
18 and 25 years old, and he should have successfully finished
unversity with a high-level degree. He also should have business
experiences of 5 or more years. He should also have worked in a
company like yours in the past years, with no "big break" of
unemployment. He should have learned (on his costs!) what you
are expecting. You are willing to pay him the same money he
would get when he would be unemployed, because "that's what
everyone pays". And he won't work for your company. He will
work for another comany so your company can get an invoice for
his work by the company he works for instead - "material costs
goooood, personnel costs baaaaaad" (you need that for tax magic
later on).
(Okay, that's a typical description of the job market in IT you
currently find in Germany. US and other countries may be different
and not that retarded.)
Quantifying such skills is very hard. "Self-estimating" one's
skills is the thing applicants typically do in their applications.
Is this objective? No, it's mostly highly subjective depending
on individual experiences and findings. To turn that into _comparable_
numbers would require scientists (psychologists, mathematicians,
sociologists, IT researchers) to construct tests that exactly
map that. I know there are several standardized tests, but some
of them are relatively old. In our IT world, "old" starts at 12
months (or maybe even earlier). And getting generic skills into
those scales looks nearly impossible to me...
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:52:56 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> 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.=20
A main problem here as that many (maybe most?) of the _really_
skilled applicants don't waste their time on certificates. They
have many qualities and abilities, several man's lives worth of
knowledge, and long experience. But they don't have certificates
that _say so_. Especially those not being directly employed may
find it problematic to get any piece of paper stating _what_ they
did for their customers.
I do not deny that employing a new guy in the company would be
cheap. It's not. It requires time and money. Reading applications,
judging qualifications, doing interviews and so on. That's why
companies tend to externalize this task to HR services. The
result however is highly debatable, and the "money argument" is
weak. Companies spend _lots_ of money for "certified processes",
for extraordinary expensive licensing, for hardware, for software,
for energy. This money "is available" and is spent regardless of
existing alternatives. So _if_ they would become more efficient
on those expenses, they could _invest_ in a thing that's much
more valuable than software licenses or service contracts: I'm
obviously talking about skilled and motivated personnel, because
let's face it: "money works" doesn't work. Money does not work.
People do work. And if you don't treat them well, they'll leave
the company sooner or later. You can externalize a lot, but not
everything. Companies should judge how important their "human
capital" is to them, because _that_ is what's primarily driving
the markets (okay, at least the consumer markets and the sectors
where R&D and inventions are made).
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:43:06 -0400, Jerry wrote:
> 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
> r=E9sum=E9. If the mountain will not come to Mahomet, Mahomet must go to
> the mountain.
Here the circle closes. I think many applicants actually do
what Jerry suggested: Lie in their "skill profile" or resume.
The result? Quite simple: People _not_ being qualified for
a job occupying this precious workspace where someone with
the proper skills could have find a job. You often find this
in office-related jobs: People who are evidently unable to
do the simplest PC stuff - but those are employed! Even more,
they cost the employer lots of money (by wasting time and not
getting the work done), but nobody fires them. And because
the positions _are_ occupied, applicants are rejected not
because they're "not qualified enough", but because the job
already "is in use". You often wonder _how_ certain people
got the jobs they have...
Honestly, I've got a lot to learn about how business works. :-)
--=20
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120427072741.190e2408.freebsd>