Slashdot Mirror
What Do You Want in a Job Website?
antifoidulus asks: "After reading some complaints about monster.com from both the perspectives of job seekers and employers it struck me as how, even in 2006, most job sites are incredibly poor at what they do. So I ask my fellow Slashdot readers, both job seekers and employers, what do you really want in a jobs web site? What features are totally lacking in the current crop? Also, what aspects of the current systems do you love/hate?"
1. Their main revenue source these days seems to be from student loan refinance companies.
2. They allow bogus "professional training" companies to masquerade as employers.
3. They don't make it clear how much information others can learn about you (e.g., can a complete stranger find your name, address, phone number, etc.? Can your current employer see that you recently posted your resume?)
A good job website would work like this. Job seekers can post one or two resumes online for free. Employers can search all resumes for free. They can contact job seekers for a small fee. Job seekers should be able to choose which employers can see their contact info. Any "employer" offering job seekers anything other than a real job or internship should not be allowed to use the site. Predatory student loan refinancing companies should be completely excluded from the site.
If you can read this sig, you're too close.
Indeed.com is a good step in the right direction. (disclaimer: I work there)
Indeed currently has 3.4 million jobs from the last 30 days. It lets you search jobs from thousands of sites in one place. And it has a cool job trends tool.
Oh yea, and it has a site for Canadian jobs, too.
You have a point that a degree, even from an Ivy League institution, does not automatically confer common sense, an ability to solve problems in the real world in real time, or even a guarantee that the person knows how to think well.
It is also sadly the case that many schools and so-called professors are a complete waste of time (and that is being generous).
I also think that most HR people and recruiters suck -- they don't really understand the real requirements, and just match lists of requirements and capabilities (and usually badly at that).
I have an Ivy degree, and was self taught in the computing field, so I know the value of both. In fact, I feel that being self-taught can be a distinct advantage, because one's thinking might not be as constrained as it would be with a formal education.
Yet, as an employer (running software companies), I always started my basic requirements for all positions, even front-office support type positions, with a requirement for a four-year degree or commensurate experience. I have occasionally used the "commensurate experience" exception, and was well rewarded with excellent employees, but the hurdle was high.
Requiring a degree gave me two things as an employer. First, I knew that the applicant had passed the admissions filter and had demonstrated some ability to think and complete work over a period of years. Yes, it is VERY imperfect, but it is something. Second, an education, especially a liberal arts education which we strongly preferred, can dramatically extend your ability to think in different ways; the student should have been systematically exposed to many more modes of thinking than are encountered in ordinary life. All too often this means nothing, and I must still evaluate each case, but my odds are much improved over the pool of the un-degreed.
The next thing I do with all applicants is to read their writing and resumes as a work product unto itself. How well are they doing the task at hand (of applying for a job)?
You, unfortunately, would have already failed this screening, even with a degree. Your third sentence jumped out and hit me over the head with the fact that you don't know the difference between possessive and plural, or between "there" and "their", and these are repeated errors. It is not merely being a 'grammar-nazi'. How you communicate matters -- do you expect the computer or someone else to debug your code? You are asking them to do it with your writing.
I would have to ask two questions: First, if you are this careless or uneducated with your primary language of communication, how careful or educated will you be with a computer language? Second, I will have to worry about every memo leaving your desk making my organization look questionable? Every good thinker I know uses English as a primary tool, does it well, and immediately recognizes the difference in those that do and do not.
Moreover, I would need to see more than just 'I'm so much better than Jack and Joe with their degrees'. I see good enthusiasm and 'get it done' attitude, but I'd need to see more evidence of precision, rigor and forethought in your work (not that it doesn't exist, but it is not evident here).
If you want to do well being hired by others, I'd suggest getting a good degree, and being absolutely ruthless with your instructors. Accept nothing less than clear, rigorous instruction. Seek out the instructors others call tough. You are paying for an education -- demand the best. Because, frankly, the degree itself isn't worth crap -- there are plenty of degreed people I wouldn't hire to sweep the floors.
Alternatively, start your own company. That way, you can hire yourself without a degree, and the people that hire you (your customers) will be more focused on what you can do for them now than what you did in the past. But again, be rigorous -- ask the question "would you hire yourself?", and do whatever it takes to answer that question "Yes" before you start.
Good luck in whatever path you choose.