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. > > > >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). -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"