Unless 50 people apply and only 5 have three years experience. Then, as an employer, I will interview the 5 with 3 years and not the 45 without.
And - I do check. I have it happen that "on paper" the person looked like they had at least three years experience. But when you added up the periods of work it came to less than 2. And I can say that did not go down well (
i.e. trying to inflate the experience to gain an interview). Suffice to say the person did not get the role.
So it is about time. But unless you state up front SOME time to indicate experience then what benchmark would be more appropriate? You dont add up the "hours" (that is being pedantic). But if someone says "I've been programming in CF for 5 years, 3 of those years I was a full-time CF developer" - then it makes sense versus "I have been programming in Cold Fusion since Version 1 - 9 years! - but I only did three projects that only lasted up to three months each".
Who would you pick?
Regards,
Gary
Gary
On 6/28/05, Chad Renando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [PS - the "years" thing isn't about hours, it's about demonstrable ability -
So we all agree it's not really about time at all, really just an
ambiguous specification hoping to somehow identify a level of
experience. Therefore, it's highly unlikely that anyone will get
kicked back purely for having 2 years experience instead of 3.
Chad
who is at this very moment "getting up on it like this" with The
Chemical Brothers
---
You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
--- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
