[Tfug] [OT] Thinking about getting an online degree

[Bexley Hall]

--- On Sat, 12/27/08, Harry McGregor <micros at osef.org> wrote:

> >> Knowing people and knowing how to write tends to help the most.

I think the former (i.e., contacts) is the stronger of the two.

> Oh, and to add to that, the Federal Government won't
> look at you unless you are either too good for the position, 
> or can lie through your teeth.

(sigh)  Do *not* lie on your resume or in an interview.
It is just *too* easy to catch people doing this.  And,
even if you land the job, it can be used to summarily
dismiss you at a later date when the truth comes out.

I've caught many job applicants in bald-faced lies.
Usually, misrepresenting what they have done (i.e.,
claiming to have done something when, in fact, it
was someone else who "did" it -- their involvement
was peripheral, at best).

Note that their are rules (laws?) over what a previous 
employer can/will disclose to a prosepective new employer.
But, those rules do not apply to your "work-mates"
(though one still has to be wary of libel).

Some industries are very small, tight-knit groups.
"Everyone knows everyone".  So, it is easy to make a
call "off the record" and get The Straight Dope on
a prospective applicant without going through "formal
channels".  I've done this, often, to catch people
misrepresenting themselves and/or their accomplishments.

Also, in more technical fields, it is not uncommon to
"test" an applicant "on the spot".  Usually not a tough
question but, rather, one that shows how the person
approaches a problem and how well they think on their feet.

So, you might be asked to design a little circuit or
hack together a simple algorithm.  The followup questions
are most important:  "How would you *improve* what you
have just done (admittedly, under pressure)?"  This is
good for catching people who are aware of your firm's
testing policy and come prepared with "canned answers".

> To make it to the local hiring managers, you have to answer
> every question on the application perfectly.  Any sign that 
> you can't answer every question perfectly, and you don't 
> make the list sent on from HR.

(sigh)  I had a cousin who was a big shot at a large
multinational (fortune 100) firm.  I recall him boasting (?)
to me that he wouldn't hire someone if their fingernails
weren't clean; or, their shoes weren't polished; etc.
At the time, this seemed assinine (it still does!).
But, from his point of view, he is inundated with
hundreds of applications for a particular job.  He can
apply any sort of litmus test he deems appropriate to
"thin the herd".  In *his* mind, appearance was a
simple test to enforce  :<   (arguably, if someone
isn't willing to invest the time in proper "presentation",
then how serious are they about the job??)

> As a hiring manager, I think that's nuts.  You need to
> evaluate each person's pluses and minuses, and figure 
> out the best fit for the position.

That's a laudable goal -- but I think the practicalities
of most hiring situations result in many artificial and
arbitrary (see above) criteria being imposed.  *Hopefully*,
the person doing the hiring/evaluation is at least *aware*
of any of these arbitrary criteria he/she may be imposing.
Subconcious prejudices are considerably harder to identify.

> Working for the University used to have some semblance of
> stability to it, now the Regents are pushing towards
> "centralized" IT for "cost savings".  All of the possible 
> cost savings will be made up by the time
> it takes to figure out how to do this, and then the
> "underground" IT infrastructure that will arise out of the ashes.

This is common wherever "rules" are put in place (bean counters,
etc.).

I wrote a contract many years ago.  We were trying to sort out
how we (the supplier) would provide "spares" to our customer
(client).  "Minimum order quantities", "preapproved subassemblies",
etc.  The client made a very astute observation:  "Let's just
play it by ear; if we (client) start asking for things that
get to be too tedious/costly for you (supplier) to provide
(e.g., asking to purchase a single *screw*), you can just
start quoting us insanely long lead times to discourage these
sorts of requests -- we'll get the message without having to
argue about the details of the existing contract, etc."

His point:  when you make a rule, you just give people 
something that they have to work-AROUND!

> Instead of pushing for centralized IT, they need to improve
> and reduce the cost of centralized services, and get departmental
> IT to buy into them.

Treat IT as a cost center.  Let them price/sell their services.
Let departments "go outside" for services (this isn't always
practical).  This keeps pressure on IT to keep their
organization "lean" and efficient.

I always chuckle when groups are faced with budget cuts, etc.
(e.g., as the city/county are, currently).  They invariably
come up with *something* to trim from the budget.

My question is:  why couldn't you have trimmed this when
"times were good"?  (of course, this is a superficial argument
but it tries to highlight the fact that groups tend NOT to
be as efficient as possible unless they *have* to be)

<shrug>  I'll leave the soap box for the next participant...