Interview
in [Java Help]
|
From: Mike Schilling on 6 Oct 2009 14:03 Dagon wrote: > > So if they're hiring a PLAF designer/developer, you're probably not > a > good fit. If they're hiring a general Java/Swing developer, they > interviewed very badly and miss out on you. And if they're hiring someone who'll be around for the long term based on the requirements for the current project rather than on his general skills and abilities, they're idiots. Many hiring managers are idiots.
From: Dave Searles on 7 Oct 2009 02:41 Mike Schilling wrote: > Dave Searles wrote: >> Leif Roar Moldskred wrote: >>> While there are exceptions, of course, in my experience there is a >>> surprising lack of knowledge about the _business_ of software >>> _both_ >>> among managers in IT companies _and_ among many developers. As an >>> industry it seems rather infantile and unprofessional, stubbornly >>> unable to look inwards at its own workings. >> Perhaps because the industry IS an infant. We've had a serious >> consumer software industry for what, 30 years? Internet industry for >> 15? Even the mainframe industry for maybe 50. Vs. an automotive >> industry for 100, an entertainment industry for 150, a telecom >> industry for 150, a transportation industry for over 200, and >> clothing, housing, and some other industries in some form or another >> for over 10,000. > > Not only is it (as you point out) young, it's extremely volatile. > "Professional", in the sense Leif uses, largely means "There is a > canon of conventional wisdom that members are assumed to understand". > That could be formed over a few decades, but not when things are > turned upside down several times each decade. I'm not convinced there isn't already *some* conventional wisdom among e.g. software engineers. At least the really competent ones. There certainly are attempts to codify such -- patterns, Law of Demeter, even Greenspun's Tenth Rule, lists of code smells, lists of best practices in language X, etc.
From: Dave Searles on 7 Oct 2009 02:42 Alan Morgan wrote: > In article <4ac825d1$0$1954$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, > Kevin McMurtrie <kevinmcm(a)sonic.net> wrote: >> In article <ha83np$3g6$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >> Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >>>> - Misc: Your cellphone rang >>> So it's held against you if someone else happens to pick a (probably >>> unknown-to-them) particular period of time in which to decide to want to >>> talk to you? How ridiculous. >> [personal attack deleted] > > Agreed. Wrong.
From: Dave Searles on 7 Oct 2009 02:47 Dagon wrote: > When there are other developers who appear just as smart and generally > competent as you who _HAVE_ the specifics, they're going to get the job. No > use complaining about that. You can sometimes play up your general skills and > speed of learning, but some jobs they really do want a short-term plug-in task > performer. Which isn't you, if you've not done that task before. It doesn't help that EVERY job in IT seems to be advertised as if it's such a short-term plug-in task performer position. Being able to pre-screen those out (at least the ones you don't *exactly* match) when answering ads would be useful. > The thing to complain about is that the hiring manager didn't tell you this on > the phone screen so you could prepare (or set your expectations that this is a > practice interview rather than a real chance at work you'll want). How would such a "practice interview" be useful? Practice is generally only useful if there's subsequent feedback on performance. If the outcome is going to be the same no matter what (in this case, not getting the job) then that feedback is lacking.
From: Arved Sandstrom on 7 Oct 2009 06:19
Dave Searles wrote: > Dagon wrote: >> When there are other developers who appear just as smart and generally >> competent as you who _HAVE_ the specifics, they're going to get the >> job. No >> use complaining about that. You can sometimes play up your general >> skills and >> speed of learning, but some jobs they really do want a short-term >> plug-in task >> performer. Which isn't you, if you've not done that task before. > > It doesn't help that EVERY job in IT seems to be advertised as if it's > such a short-term plug-in task performer position. Being able to > pre-screen those out (at least the ones you don't *exactly* match) when > answering ads would be useful. The majority of IT job ads may seem that way - I've had to write a few ads myself (for putting on company Careers web pages) - but consider the fact that many (if not most) of them simply aren't written all that well. The typical IT shop often would be perfectly happy to interview and hire a competent reasonably experienced person that can learn all the skills they need for a specific job - but they also know that if they advertise for that then they'll get bombarded by resumes by absolutely everyone. Lacking any other mechanism for reducing the potential pool of applicants, the ad writer tends to start throwing in all sorts of required and desirable skills. In reality though, if an applicant appears with a fine resume, and there is a not-so-huge gap between their skills and what was advertised, this is not usually a problem. Some stuff is non-negotiable, and an experienced applicant should know it. It'll stand out in the ad. If an ad requests solid J2EE skills, that's not a short-term plugin requirement - it takes years to amass solid J2EE skills. If OTOH the ad also states that experience with Spring MVC is required, take that with a grain of salt...unless the position is a short-term job where you start out running on a client site. Just be prepared to explain why _your_ experience with three other frameworks will help you learn Spring MVC tout de suite. >> The thing to complain about is that the hiring manager didn't tell you >> this on >> the phone screen so you could prepare (or set your expectations that >> this is a >> practice interview rather than a real chance at work you'll want). > > How would such a "practice interview" be useful? Practice is generally > only useful if there's subsequent feedback on performance. If the > outcome is going to be the same no matter what (in this case, not > getting the job) then that feedback is lacking. If you made it as far as an actual interview there's a decent chance that if you courteously ask why you were eliminated that they will actually tell you. And if you've made it far enough in the competition they often tell you without you having to ask. Interviewers, whether technical or HR, aren't usually out to annoy the people they interview, so if they can be helpful and provide information they'll try to do it. After all, some time in the future *they* may be looking for a job, and get interviewed by someone they encountered on the other side of a hiring desk. AHS |