Interview
in [Java Help]
|
From: Lew on 7 Oct 2009 07:37 Dave Searles wrote: >> If you had more evidence than just her word for it? Or even if you >> only had her word for it? The latter is tantamount to giving her a >> veto, though. Do receptionists have to be female? Arved Sandstrom wrote: > ... the odds are very good that the candidate in fact was a > pompous disrespectful prick. -- Lew
From: Alan Morgan on 7 Oct 2009 10:02 In article <hahd8t$h9$10(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >Alan Morgan wrote: >> In article <4ac825d1$0$1954$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, >> Kevin McMurtrie <kevinmcm(a)sonic.net> wrote: >>> In article <ha83np$3g6$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >>> Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >>>>> - Misc: Your cellphone rang >>>> So it's held against you if someone else happens to pick a (probably >>>> unknown-to-them) particular period of time in which to decide to want to >>>> talk to you? How ridiculous. >>> [personal attack deleted] >> >> Agreed. > >Wrong. Actually, I'm pretty confident that I do agree with him, but I welcome evidence to the contrary. Alan -- Defendit numerus
From: Dave Searles on 7 Oct 2009 17:49 Alan Morgan wrote: > In article <hahd8t$h9$10(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >> 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. > > Actually, I'm pretty confident that I do agree with him But he's wrong, so if you agree with him, so are you.
From: Dave Searles on 7 Oct 2009 17:52 Lew wrote: > Dave Searles wrote: >>> If you had more evidence than just her word for it? Or even if you >>> only had her word for it? The latter is tantamount to giving her a >>> veto, though. > > Do receptionists have to be female? No, but the statistical odds favor it, for whatever reason.
From: Dave Searles on 7 Oct 2009 17:56
Arved Sandstrom wrote: > 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. My point exactly. > 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. So they err, but in the other direction, instead of finding the happy middle? > Some stuff is non-negotiable, and an experienced applicant should know > it. Ads should make what's negotiable (and what's not) clear. >>> 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 in the hypothetical case in question "why you were eliminated" was "because you're an American citizen", if I recall correctly. And if they won't admit that, they'll just make something up. In neither case is it useful feedback on your interview performance. |