I hear this sort of thing all the time when I'm intervewing candidates. People say to me, Yeah, I'd really like to learn [Java,C#,Ruby,SomeOtherLanguage]. Then I ask them what they think about [FreeDevelopmentEnvironmentForThatLanguage]. And they say "Oh, I haven't downloaded that yet.".
I completely agree. However, what if OP would be willing to learn "all/any of the above." For example, they could be hammering on Ruby for 4 months but ignoring Java. Doesn't mean they are lazy or stupid - could mean that they haven't gotten around to it yet - but they have shown an interest/track record in learning new things.
I think many companies should set fair, clear and objective metrics for employees - and then base pay off of it. That way, management could easily defuse any situation by sharing data with employees.
It sounds like you are doing things the right way.
I think a parallel to this discussion is companies need well known objective metrics to judge employees by. If someone feels they are being underpaid, management can "show their work" as to how they arrived at the salaries. Also, you can define goals for your employees.
Thank you for the clarification. I remember seeing something regarding the headers when flipping through one of the O'Reilly IPv6 books. I was planning on going back though the books to get a better handle.
In theory, IPv6 will do away with NAT so some applications/protocols won't need any special workarounds. In the end, you'll still have 4 devices streaming your Netflix in either case. I don't know of any overhead penalty for moving to IPv6, so maybe someone smarter than me can speak to that. I'd assuming routing tables will be bigger because there are more/longer addresses but could be wrong.
Take me for example. I do work in some niche languages, some you probably never heard of. I took the job years ago, have to pay the bills. I want to get out. I have a masters degree in a related field. I am slowly trying to learn/keep up to date in my free time (you know when life doesn't get in the way). However, I run into a lot of resistence since I have taken a non-tradional path and I don't have all the keywords.
I remember seeing ads in 2000-2002 time frame of companies wanting 7+ years of Java. If you were lucky - at a company that was an early adopter - you'd probably have 5-6 years tops. Unless of course your name was Gossling...
So, you're telling me if someone has a degree in CS/MIS/SE/etc. and years of programming in language X, that they can't pick up language Y and become productive in a reasonable amount of time? Have the underlying concepts of programming changed all that much? Is this the Twilight Zone or something?
I'm not even talking $100K salaries. Why not hire people out of college at $42K (who have 3.0+ GPA in STEM degrees for example) and help tie off the loose ends?
If you provide necessary training, then you're the exception to the rule. The "issue" is that our educational system/corporations have fallen short in some regards - they want skill sets that are rare, but have been unwilling to develop employees. Now they are reaping what they have planted.
I agree. But I know people with STEM degrees who have difficulty finding meaningful work. It seems to me that if you have less than 5 years or so of professional work in very specific areas in addition to a relevant degree, that you're SOL
Here's a question..... Why not hire the glut of people already in the system? As I posted earlier, why do we need to import labor with the amount of unemployed/underemployed people we have now?
I agree that importing labor may be a good thing, but there is some merit to the flaming that happens in these topics.
Ever look for an entry level position? Or even look to switch the type of programming or IT admin you like to do? Or you're a seasoned web developer and all the jobs want a guru but pay peanuts? The same companies will turn around and then say theres a shortage of educated workers, even though there are people out there who may need a little polish
Read my lips. No amount of training is going to bridge the shortage of skilled workers in the USA. Until something is done that actually addresses the problems in your education system this is always going to be an issue.
The education system is far from perfect, but there seems to be a lack of entry level positions that would help aleviate the problem. Basically Corporate America complains there is a "talent shortage" but then does nothing about it.
Why do we need to bring in labor when we have 8.2% unemployment, not counting those who quit looking and underemployment? Are companies not willing to invest in its own workforce or in schools to develop these people? Or do they want them shipped over on a gold platter?
Here's the issue... None of the canidates you are complaining about have been properly trained and are a bit rough around the edges. As others have stated, it seems that Corporate America wants to pass the training buck to someone else.
Also, if canidates don't know about some of the trivia in your interview... Maybe they haven't needed it or been exposed to it. Doesn't mean he are stupid or would make a bad employee. I would take a highly motivated, smart person rather than some person who can answer trivia but doesn't give two shits about the job.
First thing... The OP was pointing out that you can match 80% of the keywords and not get a call back.
Secondly, many people, like myself, may want to get into oracle and linux/UNIX administration but can't afford the liscensing fees or the big iron companies can afford, so that we can actuallly learn the position. So we are stuck with smaller scale stuff - but your typical recruiter/HR/manager type does not realize this can scale, and they want real world expierence because they are unwilling to train.
I think part of the problem is modern recruitment is broken. The article here is a prime example.
The issue is that HR/Headhunters/Recruiters/Management get too hung up on "keywords" and "checklists" for rigid requirements (i.e. Must have 7-10 years exp. and a degree).
If you happen to be laid off, and have 12 years of Java, people won't consider you for.Net jobs or jobs that require 3-5 years of Java experience. Even though you'd take a reasonable pay cut for obvious reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
As I've stated here on /., why do we need to import labour when we have high levels of Unemployment/Underemployment?
And there is also a lack of entry / junior level work, so that companies can develop the people they need.
Kids comming out of College need some spit and polish.
Again, what is wrong with hiring someone who may require some training?
I hear this sort of thing all the time when I'm intervewing candidates. People say to me, Yeah, I'd really like to learn [Java,C#,Ruby,SomeOtherLanguage]. Then I ask them what they think about [FreeDevelopmentEnvironmentForThatLanguage]. And they say "Oh, I haven't downloaded that yet." .
I completely agree. However, what if OP would be willing to learn "all/any of the above." For example, they could be hammering on Ruby for 4 months but ignoring Java. Doesn't mean they are lazy or stupid - could mean that they haven't gotten around to it yet - but they have shown an interest/track record in learning new things.
I think many companies should set fair, clear and objective metrics for employees - and then base pay off of it. That way, management could easily defuse any situation by sharing data with employees.
It sounds like you are doing things the right way.
I think a parallel to this discussion is companies need well known objective metrics to judge employees by. If someone feels they are being underpaid, management can "show their work" as to how they arrived at the salaries. Also, you can define goals for your employees.
Thank you for the clarification. I remember seeing something regarding the headers when flipping through one of the O'Reilly IPv6 books. I was planning on going back though the books to get a better handle.
Interesting takes. I don't think Iran wanted the software to begin with. But I think they would love to see the source code!
In theory, IPv6 will do away with NAT so some applications/protocols won't need any special workarounds. In the end, you'll still have 4 devices streaming your Netflix in either case. I don't know of any overhead penalty for moving to IPv6, so maybe someone smarter than me can speak to that. I'd assuming routing tables will be bigger because there are more/longer addresses but could be wrong.
Companies would rather bring in exactly want they want (i.e. skills, no training at low pay) then actually expend some effort.
Thanks :-)
Even then it is hard to find a job. I am passionate about IT but need some spit and polish.
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Take me for example. I do work in some niche languages, some you probably never heard of. I took the job years ago, have to pay the bills. I want to get out. I have a masters degree in a related field. I am slowly trying to learn/keep up to date in my free time (you know when life doesn't get in the way). However, I run into a lot of resistence since I have taken a non-tradional path and I don't have all the keywords.
I remember seeing ads in 2000-2002 time frame of companies wanting 7+ years of Java. If you were lucky - at a company that was an early adopter - you'd probably have 5-6 years tops. Unless of course your name was Gossling...
So, you're telling me if someone has a degree in CS/MIS/SE/etc. and years of programming in language X, that they can't pick up language Y and become productive in a reasonable amount of time? Have the underlying concepts of programming changed all that much? Is this the Twilight Zone or something?
I'm not even talking $100K salaries. Why not hire people out of college at $42K (who have 3.0+ GPA in STEM degrees for example) and help tie off the loose ends?
If you provide necessary training, then you're the exception to the rule. The "issue" is that our educational system/corporations have fallen short in some regards - they want skill sets that are rare, but have been unwilling to develop employees. Now they are reaping what they have planted.
I agree. But I know people with STEM degrees who have difficulty finding meaningful work. It seems to me that if you have less than 5 years or so of professional work in very specific areas in addition to a relevant degree, that you're SOL
Here's a question..... Why not hire the glut of people already in the system? As I posted earlier, why do we need to import labor with the amount of unemployed/underemployed people we have now?
I agree that importing labor may be a good thing, but there is some merit to the flaming that happens in these topics.
Ever look for an entry level position? Or even look to switch the type of programming or IT admin you like to do? Or you're a seasoned web developer and all the jobs want a guru but pay peanuts? The same companies will turn around and then say theres a shortage of educated workers, even though there are people out there who may need a little polish
Read my lips. No amount of training is going to bridge the shortage of skilled workers in the USA. Until something is done that actually addresses the problems in your education system this is always going to be an issue.
The education system is far from perfect, but there seems to be a lack of entry level positions that would help aleviate the problem. Basically Corporate America complains there is a "talent shortage" but then does nothing about it.
At the risk of sounding Xenophobic...
Why do we need to bring in labor when we have 8.2% unemployment, not counting those who quit looking and underemployment? Are companies not willing to invest in its own workforce or in schools to develop these people? Or do they want them shipped over on a gold platter?
Have no problem with learning... But many places what years of full time paid experience.
Here's the issue... None of the canidates you are complaining about have been properly trained and are a bit rough around the edges. As others have stated, it seems that Corporate America wants to pass the training buck to someone else.
Also, if canidates don't know about some of the trivia in your interview... Maybe they haven't needed it or been exposed to it. Doesn't mean he are stupid or would make a bad employee. I would take a highly motivated, smart person rather than some person who can answer trivia but doesn't give two shits about the job.
I think you're missing part of the point.
First thing... The OP was pointing out that you can match 80% of the keywords and not get a call back.
Secondly, many people, like myself, may want to get into oracle and linux/UNIX administration but can't afford the liscensing fees or the big iron companies can afford, so that we can actuallly learn the position. So we are stuck with smaller scale stuff - but your typical recruiter/HR/manager type does not realize this can scale, and they want real world expierence because they are unwilling to train.
I think part of the problem is modern recruitment is broken. The article here is a prime example.
The issue is that HR/Headhunters/Recruiters/Management get too hung up on "keywords" and "checklists" for rigid requirements (i.e. Must have 7-10 years exp. and a degree).
If you happen to be laid off, and have 12 years of Java, people won't consider you for .Net jobs or jobs that require 3-5 years of Java experience. Even though you'd take a reasonable pay cut for obvious reasons.