I guess if you were playing with the Alpha and Beta releases of .Net 4, then
it's possible you've got about 2 yrs experience with it..


On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:39 PM, silky <[email protected]> wrote:

> > I was at an Australian (alleged) News site where they have job ads from
> > their sister sites/sponsors in one of the columns, one was for a Senior
> > .NET Role, so I thought I'd have a sticky beak... The first requirement
> was:
> >
> > "5-10 years in C#.Net 2.0-3.5"
> >
> > VS2005 release was October 2005, with the 2.0 Framework Redistributable
> > made available in Jan 2006....
> >
> > Why why why?
>
> Mm, I saw something similar (2 years in C# 4.0 or something).
>
> It's arguably interesting. I mean, there are a few solutions to the
> problem:
>
>  1/ Recruiters hire programmers to vet all their jobs ad's
>   - Cons: Expensive, time consuming
>   - Pros: Hopefully acurate
>
>  2/ Recruiters do research themselves and get everything correct
>   - Even more time consuming than the above, and probably less accurate
>
>  3/ Recruiters take requirements from clients, publish them in an
> 'appropriate fashion' and hope people 'get the idea'
>   - Current process
>
>  4/ Some magical scheme whereby the positions are posted in such a way
> that errors are impossible (i.e. the job website deals with it), or
> any other scheme I can't think of
>   - Not currently available
>
> Clearly, the most likely situation is 3. If only for the reason that
> it applies to all fields and not only programming. I think we can all
> agree that there is, generally, a different set of skills required in
> the recruiting business as compared to the given business they recruit
> in. As a pipe to the companies they are arguably efficient (from both
> ends). Now, if people are being rejected by recruiters for not
> *having* 10 years experience in .NET N.M, then that's not good. But in
> my experience, this is not the case. I hope I've bored you enough with
> this response. I'll go back to watching Star Trek now.
>
> --
> silky
>
> Every morning when I wake up, I experience an exquisite joy — the joy
> of being this signature.
>

Reply via email to