Wait a minute, a recruitor that can read source code? Most of recruitors I have dealt with can barely read my resume...
-jve On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Anthony Ettinger wrote: > References are total bs way of determining anything > anyway, obviously you're going to talk with the > reference ahead of time to make sure they say the > right stuff. > > Typically recruiters ask for references so they can > pitch their firm's services to your references. > > If they want to know how well you program, show them > the source code. They can get a good idea about your > character in the face-to-face interview. > > > > > > > --- Terrence Brannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This message is a cleaner re-write of an earlier > > assault on the > > irksome convention of some employers requiring > > references as part of > > the interview process. > > > > URL to previous discussion thread: > > > > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00433.html > > > > WHY REFERENCES SUCK IN GENERAL > > > > 1/ They require the time of the reference. 15 > > minutes per reference > > phone call means 2-3 hours out of each references > > work week during a > > typical job search. Your reference (and his boss) > > will love you for > > taking up his time. > > > > 2/ The reference and/or his company can get in legal > > trouble. Oracle, > > for example, has a policy that its employees will > > not give references > > to former employees. The extent of referent > > information is manager > > name and time and location of employment. I worked > > at Oracle. I can't get > > a character or technical reference from them. I love > > the skeptical looks I > > get when I try to explain this to people. > > > > 3/ They allow a bad boss one more shot at tyranny. > > If you worked for a > > jerk, then what? As an extreme example, assume that > > Martin Luther King > > worked for 3 closet white supremacists. Would he > > ever get a good > > reference? Probably not. But that doesn't mean that > > he is a bad > > person. > > > > 4/ People move, retire, die, or go belly up: I > > worked during the dot-com > > era. That's 3 years worth of references that I will > > never be able to > > resource because all of those people have bitten the > > dust. I guess > > that makes me a bad person. > > > > WHY TECHNICAL REFERENCES SUCK > > > > 1/ If you want to know how good I am technically, > > break out the > > appropriate technical test. > > > > WHY CHARACTER REFERENCES SUCK > > > > 1/ Let's assume that a character reference is a good > > way of knowing > > how good person X is. If this is true, then you > > really must have > > references for the references of person X before you > > can trust the > > references of person X. And you must have references > > for the > > references of the references of the references of > > person X before you > > can know how good the references for person X are. > > > > Logically: > > > > X good => (references for X good) > > (references for X good) => (references for > > (references for X) good) > > (references for (references for X) good) => > > (references for (references for (references > > for X)) good) > > > > So we see that we have a recursive and > > non-terminating algorithm for > > determining if X is good. > > > > The self-referential unsolvable nature of the > > character reference > > proof system shows its fallibility. > > > > > ===== > Anthony Ettinger > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.apwebdesign.com > Instant Messengers: > 1) yahoo im: apwebdesign 2) aol im: apwebdesignxl > 3) msn im: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4) icq im: 659139 > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. > http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html >
