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).