On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 10:03:51 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 14:40 -0700, Hubert Chan wrote: >> I assume FD is a pre-screen, so that they can send back applications >> that fail on some more obvious criteria. DAM may need to do more >> thorough checks. FD's checks ensure that applications that reach DAM >> are more ready to be processed, reducing DAM's load by decreasing the >> number of applications they need to go through. > This reduction of load would only be effective if the FD-step would > eliminate over 50% of candidates. Since it takes twice as much > manpower to double-check, only if the first check will reject more > than half this construction would save time. I hardly doubt it does. I believe you also have to take into account the fact that there are more FD than DAM. So if 3 FDs (I don't know how many FD we have) each put one application on hold, that's 3*x hours work reduction for our one DAM, where x is the number of hours that DAM takes on one application. > And apart from that, I don't see why the pre-screening couldn't be > made into a full screening, since as Marc Brockschmidt indicated, one > FD check can take about two hours. If you spend that much time you can > be pretty certain you did a thorough check on the person, and the DAM > shouldn't have to repeat that. Some questions: - do the FD and DAM check the exact same things? If yes, then FD might be considered superfluous. If no, then it is not. - is FD considered capable of doing a full screening? (enough experience, trustworthy, etc.) [Please don't Cc: me. I'm subscribed already.] -- Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
