Having recently moved away from Northern Virginia, I'm not sure if it's fair to use that as an example of a typical suburb. Northern Virginia and Baltimore and kind of atypical, as a lot of the financial success in the area is due to employment either directory or indirectly supplied by the federal government. There's a *lot* of traffic, and it kind of felt like the area was designed to accommodate work traffic (driving) over everything else. Even residential areas suffered from gridlock.
I grew up in Chicago and the Chicago suburbs, and while Chicago has its own traffic issues, they seemed a lot easier than things in the DC area. I remember there being plenty of places to bike to as a child, and even now, know many adults who live in the city without a car. The city also has many designated bike lanes and bike paths.
Just curious how they were transported back and forth (and how far)? I'm imagining the overall amount of fuel used would be less than using mowers, but there have been plenty of cases where good intentions didn't pay out in the end.
You probably need someone with more awareness of Chinese history and Asian cinema than I have to be able to accurately explain this, but I'll give it a shot. That movie, according to IMDB, was made in 1987. Hong Kong reverted back to China in 1997. So, it's possible that Hong Kong, when not under the control of China, was a bit more open regarding censorship.
This is purely anecdotal, but I seem to remember reading articles about people in the Hong Kong movie industry wondering what would happen after the shift, and if that would be the death of the industry.
And just because it says, "Chinese" in the title doesn't automatically qualify it as a definitive representation of everything Chinese... or ghostly, I suppose.:)
Purely anecdotal and IANAL, but I was under the impression that companies were only allowed to confirm or deny your employment, and not give feedback about your performance. Is this a state-to-state issue?
Most places I've applied to have asked for references separately from the initial application, although there will occasionally be one that asks for previous supervisor names on an application. I've seen some that had checkboxes to indicate if the company was allowed to contact the person or not.
Have you given written notice of resignation? I've known of some people who provide one to act as official proof of your resignation, and you can indicate things such as giving them three weeks notice.
Anyway, you're probably better off just sticking to the three weeks you've already said you've given them. If you've already told your future employer your start date, you don't want to start off on the wrong foot and upset the new bosses. And some companies will try to pile work on anyone who says they are leaving. Sometimes it's valuable work, but other times it will be a form of punishment. Sad, but true.
I hate to say it, but if you don't finish something, what are they really going to do to you? I know a lot of people have a sense of professional conduct, and I've personally stayed late at jobs on my last day to finish some stuff off, but if they are going to be blatant jerks, I don't really think you owe them anything.
As long as you're not screwing anyone over too harshly, I don't think there's a problem with you leaving when you originally planned. From the sounds of it, it's not a very nice place to work, so you're probably better off leaving as soon as you can and getting a fresh start. Hopefully your new place of employment will be nice. You never know until you actually start working there (speaking from experience).
Oh, and I'd be curious if HR had an exit interview planned with you. This is something you could bring up there or contact HR prior to leaving, in writing. This decision probably plans on how objective your HR department is. No harm in not wanting to rock the boat, but I don't think you can let your previous employer push you around like that.
Urban planning can be good and bad. Certainly Central Park is a win, but highways largely suck when they are run through existing cities.
What is the alternative, though? If you have the highways avoid the major city area, you are just adding more local traffic as people try to get to and from the highway.
You mention the University of Maryland. Are you near DC or Baltimore? The beltways always confused me. Since the highways were never straight (they were big circles around the cities), you couldn't really go directly anywhere. You always had to go around the beltway to get anywhere, which probably increased total distance driven. And it's debatable if there's any traffic benefit, as traffic in the DC area is probably some of the worst in the country.
Mistakes are (unfortunately) a part of our field. The ones who learn from it are the ones who become better developers. If they seem uninterested in a topic during the interview, there's no way they'll be interested once they come on board. Also, the lack of interest could be an indicator of lack of knowledge of the actual issue.
Ideally, you want the people who did the work behind a successful project. Lots of people can write that they did X, Y, Z on their resume, but when you get them in person, you should dig a little deeper to find out more about them. If you are familiar with the topic, you should be able to tell fairly quickly if they were the one to actually do the work, or just part of the team and taking credit for someone else's work (which happens quite often).
Another thing to keep in mind is that your position should be as a gatekeeper to make your work and your organization better. I've seen people say to hire someone simply because they were getting sick of interviewing people. Or someone was "good enough." Or the person is not very good, but maybe the team can put them on low-priority items. If you let poor individuals into your organization, you are negatively impacting your overall ability. Months later, when your team is full of sub-par members, dragging you down, you're going to be in trouble.
This isn't isolated to experienced people, but you have to ask yourself, "do you want to work with this person?" If the answer is "no," then you should pass on them. You don't have to be best friends, but you have to be able to have a constructive work relationship. The smartest guy in a world, if he's a jerk, will be very painful to work with.
And you shouldn't automatically assume someone without a lot of experience won't care or get things done. I'm sure there were plenty of school projects where they pulled an all-nighter, came across some interesting problems, or other things similar to folks who work have faced. I've seen people with years of experience who have coasted along in their careers, getting lucky enough to work with people who cared enough and were smart enough to make up for their lack of contribution. In some ways, younger folks haven't had the time to develop bad habits or been demoralized over the years to the point of not caring any more.
Last thing I can add is to be thorough. It's OK for an interview to go long. In fact, that's probably a *good* sign. They should be able to into great detail some of the issues they've faced in their experience. Don't be afraid to ask them to write some code, draw some diagrams, etc. You'd be surprised how many people have struggle when I've asked them to simply write a for loop. I hate to say it, but everyone can say, "I'd optimize it, I'd refactor it, etc." Let them *show* you how they'd do it. The good ones will have no problem with that, and it will improve their opinion of you, hopefully making them more likely to consider accepting an offer. Of the bad jobs I've had, I can look back on the interviews and see how little digging they did into my skills and knowledge, most likely worried they'd expose their own lack of them.
I haven't been keeping up on tuition rates, but the summary specifically states "private universities." When I was college-age (mid-to-late 90s), private university cost approximately $25,000, including room and board. So, this would be the equivalent of 4 students out of their entire student body.
I *think* current rates are closer to $40,000 per year. So, this is 2.5 students (would hate to be that.5 guy).
So, for an individual, this is quite a bit of money. But, for a large organization with pretty significant funding, probably not all that much.
As others have noted, when you are doing an interview, you should also be evaluating the company and trying to decide if you want to work there. If you are lucky, you will receive multiple offers when interviewing or be in a position where you don't need to take a job that you think will be bad.
I ended up taking a few jobs with government contracting companies. Their interviews were jokes. They raised red flags, but I chose to ignore them. During one interview, the hardest question I received was, "if we gave you business requirements, could you write code?" I answered "yes," expecting more questions, but that was pretty much it. I was offered the position, accepted, and then had a very interesting experience working for the federal government.
In another interview, my only contact with the company was via phone interviews and an off-site meeting with the project manager (at a Starbucks just a few blocks from their office). I kept telling them I could come on-site, but it never happened. This should have raised more red flags, but I was desperate to leave the previous place. When I started, they told me that I wouldn't be given a network account for 30 days, so I had nothing to do. The tech lead didn't ask anything particularly difficult during the interview, just some very lightweight things like, "where would you code business logic? in the presentation layer?" It was a step up from the previous place, and the technologies they were using were appealing, so I took the offer. After a few months, it became obvious that the reason the interview was so easy was because the tech lead didn't really have much technical knowledge. In fact, there were huge portions of the code base he didn't understand. Other developers who were on the project before him wrote their code, isolated from the other developers, padded their resumes, and then left once the initial version of the project completed. And all of those interesting technologies? They were either incorrectly implemented/designed, or they were just not used. But, again, the tech lead wouldn't know, because he was totally unqualified.
So, keep in mind that most smart, hard-working people want to work with other, smart, hard-working people. They will do their best to make sure you are qualified before saying, "yes, I want to work with this person." Yes, there are lots of organizations that put needless obstacles, usually from HR. But if the interviewers are easily impressed with just a few buzzwords on a resume, that's a good sign that you should look elsewhere.
I got the impression that the commercial was a mix of:
Attempt of Seinfeld-like humor. The running joke of how popular the "Conquistador" shoe is. I didn't think the Mexican family was particularly racist or insulting. It seemed to be fairly in-tune with some of the ridiculous situations that came up in Seinfeld's show. The churro was probably a bit of a tie-in to the family, but it could have just as easily been some other food/ethnic group.
A bit of relational humor, i.e., Jerry Seinfeld had a ridiculously successful show, "retired," and now he's got plenty of time on his hands to do stuff that "normal" people do. Bill Gates had a ridiculously successful company (remember, he retired), and now he's got plenty of time on his hands to do stuff that "normal" people do.
Mention of something big coming from Microsoft. That was probably supposed to be a real kicker in the commercial, and I'm going to assume that "Delicious" ties into whatever they will be releasing. Also, Jerry specifically asks Bill to "give him a signal... adjust your shorts." I'll agree, though, the visual of seeing Bill Gates shake his butt was lame, but there are plenty of lame commercials out there.
And let us not forget, churros really are delicious...
When I read the summary, I had the impression that the first was an e-mail exchange. Looking at the number of replies, I'm guessing 7 e-mails. Not very exciting, but that's why it's "Idle.":)
If they (the technology department) were smart, they would make it a practical interview. Ask the interviewee if they can gain administrative access to the system. If they say yes, let them try. If they can't do it, you thank them, but let them know that they aren't qualified for the position. If they *can* gain access, you thank them, and let them know that the position is no longer required.~
I'm not immensely knowledgeable about politics, but a lot of people feel that the US government has pretty much become a 2-party competition, and elected officials generally follow party lines. So, depending on the context of the comment, it could either be a compliment or an insult.
As a compliment, you can think of him as someone who thinks outside of the normal party lines. I believe McCain has co-sponsored bills with Democratic members of Congress. While this would seem to be common sense (being able to compromise with others), not everyone views that way. Some look at his as being disloyal or maybe not tough enough.
McCain has been called "not conservative enough" by some, and that was meant as an insult. They worry that he won't push the traditionally Republican viewpoints (opposition to abortion, for example).
It probably doesn't need to be pointed out, but US politics is in poor shape. It's not the fault of either party, but a collective failure. I'm not sure exactly when, but it almost feels like the venom in government got considerably stronger during Bill Clinton's presidency. I'm not saying its his fault, but if you look at Clinton, then George W. Bush, and now this round of campaigning, it seems like politics has just become petty and people are focusing on the smallest, silly things. I'm not necessarily an Obama support, but there were some press trying to question his patriotism because he wasn't wearing a US flag pin. Just silly.
As for effective government, don't make me laugh. The bureaucracy is just ridiculous. Most people in government (both elected official and civil servants) aren't interested in making a difference. They just want the status quo and to continue living off tax revenue.
Sorry for an unfocused and slightly rambling comment. I spent a couple of years working in government, and it was just very depressing to see how low the bar was set.
Another thing to consider is that you are picking up some (hopefully) beneficial skills to further your career. Not just technical skills, but some business skills and learning how office politics work.
Remember those things (as well as a the bad) when you look for another job. You can try to figure out if your new place will be a better fit for you during the interview process. You don't have to ask the manager if he's a glory-hog, but perhaps you can ask the developers who interview you how appreciated they feel and what the work dynamic is like.
And at the very least, it sounds like you got a nice line item to put onto your resume.
I think you're missing the main reason he was hired. He wasn't hired for his great managerial skills. He was hired because he was a native English-speaker. He's the face/voice that the company would like to present back to their English customers.
So, while it's admirable that you really want to develop your skills, you have to remember that sometimes the perception is what matters more (to some folks, at least).
Article is pretty worthless. It contains more hyperlinks than a Slashdot story. Here are the six cities (which are not in the linked article, but a hyperlink), in case you're interested:
I used to work for the federal government, and I am now a contractor. Everything you feared about the level of incompetence in the government is true and probably worse than you feared.
I had to take a "privacy awareness" exam, which covered how to handle sensitive data. The exam began with a summary of the various laws that federal employees are required to follow. Then, there was a multiple choice test. The problem was that if you answered a question incorrectly, you were immediately told so, and given the opportunity to re-answer the question. There was no limit to the number of incorrect responses you could supply. You were basically given the question until you answered correctly.
So, eventually, you pass this exam, and every federal employee has now passed a rigorous data security certification. It's all bullshit. There may be a few people who genuinely care about the work they do, but the vast majority are only concerned with their pensions and their next scheduled pay increase.
Want to know what the end of result of this study is? Probably nothing (I admit, I didn't read the article). But most employee unions are so strong, that management couldn't really do anything if they wanted to.
Every IT stereotype involving bad management is just amplified in the public sector. And when you throw in worker bees who just don't care, and, even if they did, are too incapable of doing anything, it's just a recipe for disaster.
That's what really pissed me off when I was in the biz. I would ask to work from home and I was ALWAYS told that, "No, we need you here to do your work."
So, I would commute in every fucking day. Then, you guessed it, my job (and others'), were sent over seas to India. Yep, they needed their IT workers there all right!
I brought this point up once with a former boss (we've both since moved on to better things, previous company had way too much stupidity), and his argument was that the second my pay rate was the same as a developer in India, he was sure he'd be able to arrange some type of telecommuting deal with the higher-ups. Just something to keep in mind. Sometimes all folks really care about is the bottom line.
I'm too lazy to take a look at the coursework, but I think it really depends. I think, on paper, you'd be better off with a Master's in Computer Science than in Software Engineering. I can see some situations where someone might initially be impressed you have an advanced degree, and then be somewhat disappointed by what the degree is in (just my opinion, though, I'm sure others would disagree).
Anyway, in my Master's program, I actually found the software engineering classes to be the most interesting, so if it's something that could help you improve your skills, I think it's worth considering. If you're lucky, then your job provides you with an environment (including colleagues) that stimulate your mind and help you develop your skills. A program like this might be nice in that it formalizes something of this. If your current job doesn't provide any of this, then this program might be nice for you.
Another potential benefit might be that it could expose you to some new technologies/software packages. Some folks need something formal to get them off their butts, while others are very good self-starters.
Sorry the advice is a bit unfocused. Anyway, the last thing I'd add is to not worry too much about your GPA. I've recently gotten a gig with a government contracting company, and I've noticed on some job applications (including federal ones), they seem to care about GPA. But I've always heard once you're in the workforce, no one cares what your GPA was. This might be more of mindset in the private sector. They care about whether or not you can get the work done, and how well your personality will mesh with the current team.
I went to a pretty good school for undergrad and grad school (reputation-wise), and I found myself working for people who went to places that some folks would snicker at. So, the school you went to, while important, isn't a deal-breaker.
I also recall reading an article a year or so ago (I believe in Newsweek) of a man who traveled to India to receive some type of heart operation. Rather than go through the expensive US healthcare system, he decided to go to India. He was able to receive what he felt was a comparable level of care, but at a fraction of the cost. He was also able to receive luxury accomodations and was treated like a king.
So, this is purely anecdotal (feel free to look for the article), but it shows anything is possible. Of course, this isn't quite outsourcing as people in IT face. And I don't think you'd ever see the medical profession held in such low regards as IT, but it's still interesting (IMO, at least).
My boss for example will not even take a look. He says, M$ products have been doing fine for him for more than a decade and can still do more for another few years.
Well, you have to consider that there will be costs associated with switching over. There's manpower to actually install and configure the software, and then there's training and learning curve. All for what? To be doing the same stuff you were before. So, it might not be appealing to your boss from that perspective (this is assuming that you guys aren't constantly upgrading MS apps).
Your best opportunity with your boss might be when contracts/licenses are being renewed, or when you guys need a new application, and an open source solution might work out better.
Note: Of course, it's entirely possible your boss is just an ass, although the two are probably not mutually exclusive.:)
Yet I find myself effectively working a subsistence lifestyle: earn just enought to pay the rent in what is a very modest appartment, manage some entertainment and loan repayments, but have a disappointing level of savings after that.
Have you considered living with a roommate to save some money? College gave me enough experience to know that I never wanted a roommate again, but others are probably more open-minded.
While personally speaking, I think a good proportion of the graduate populations US/Canadian/UK/Australian populations with a similar level of work experience would be well up for it too - 120k is not a large number.
Opinions are like... some part of the body.;) Anyway, this is also personal preference, but my guess is that you would not have a large portion of the graduate population that would want to live in India. When most people idealizae living abroad, they usually think of Europe, *maybe* Japan, or some other places which have a certain level of trendiness to them. India doesn't fit my image of that. But, like you said, 120k isn't actually a lot of people. Also, just want to point out that I don't think my opinion on this particular topic is any more valid than yours, just different.
However, if you are non-Asian you will still be regarded as a bit of a monkey on display at the zoo. People may avoid sitting next to you on trains unless it is totally packed and you may be followed around while in some small shops with suspicious owners, as if waiting for you to pocket a few items and then make a run for it. So there is a bit of racism over there, but they are generally a nice group of folks.
First, there's racism everywhere. Anyway, I just wanted to give a counterexample. I've personally never been to Japan, but from the people I've spoken to, I wouldn't go so far as to say that foreigners are regarded like a "monkey on display at the zoo."
Depending on how foreign you look, you might actually get quite a bit of positive attention. I've had caucasian friends talk about being approached by little kids who are curious. Other times, they run into people that want to practice some English. Last, but not least, there is a decent segment of girls that are interested in dating non-Asian guys. Whether this is an issue of genuine attraction, exotic factor, or "shock value" probably varies from person-to-person, though.
Just a note about the girls, just because you show up and don't look Asian doesn't mean that there will be hordes of girls fighting over you. So don't book that plane ticket quite yet.;)
Not entirely sure why you got the zoo-animal-criminal treatment... but I'm sure everyone's experiences vary.
True enough, but they were very good about replacing the affected drives regardless of whether they were still under warranty or not. I think the quality of a company's warranty says a lot about the people running it and their intentions. Commitment to customer satisfaction is quite rare and I can only hope that Iomega still maintains that same commitment.
I agree with you to an extent, but they'd be much better off to just make quality products from the start, rather than replacing a defective product with another potentially defective one. I'm more concerned with the quality of the product that with the quality of the warranty. If it's a great product, then I might not even have to care about the warranty.
Minutes, hours, or days after the clicking is first heard, the drive -- and usually one or more of the user's cartridges -- suddenly dies without warning. And since people tend to rely heavily upon their Zip and Jaz cartridges for the storage of their important data, this typically results in spontaneous, catastrophic, irreversible, loss of all their data.
So, it's great that I have a new drive that might betray me like its predecessor, but what about all of my DATA? Oh, I see, I'm SOL...
I personally have 3 credit cards and 1 banking card. I'm curious what will happen if/when multiple companies pick up on this technology? If I wave my wallet near some type of scanner, which card will be selected?
Slashdot Mirror
So, if these cows do not feel pain, would it still be considered inhumane to take actions against them that would normally cause pain?
Having recently moved away from Northern Virginia, I'm not sure if it's fair to use that as an example of a typical suburb. Northern Virginia and Baltimore and kind of atypical, as a lot of the financial success in the area is due to employment either directory or indirectly supplied by the federal government. There's a *lot* of traffic, and it kind of felt like the area was designed to accommodate work traffic (driving) over everything else. Even residential areas suffered from gridlock.
I grew up in Chicago and the Chicago suburbs, and while Chicago has its own traffic issues, they seemed a lot easier than things in the DC area. I remember there being plenty of places to bike to as a child, and even now, know many adults who live in the city without a car. The city also has many designated bike lanes and bike paths.
Just curious how they were transported back and forth (and how far)? I'm imagining the overall amount of fuel used would be less than using mowers, but there have been plenty of cases where good intentions didn't pay out in the end.
You probably need someone with more awareness of Chinese history and Asian cinema than I have to be able to accurately explain this, but I'll give it a shot. That movie, according to IMDB, was made in 1987. Hong Kong reverted back to China in 1997. So, it's possible that Hong Kong, when not under the control of China, was a bit more open regarding censorship.
This is purely anecdotal, but I seem to remember reading articles about people in the Hong Kong movie industry wondering what would happen after the shift, and if that would be the death of the industry.
And just because it says, "Chinese" in the title doesn't automatically qualify it as a definitive representation of everything Chinese... or ghostly, I suppose. :)
Purely anecdotal and IANAL, but I was under the impression that companies were only allowed to confirm or deny your employment, and not give feedback about your performance. Is this a state-to-state issue?
Most places I've applied to have asked for references separately from the initial application, although there will occasionally be one that asks for previous supervisor names on an application. I've seen some that had checkboxes to indicate if the company was allowed to contact the person or not.
Have you given written notice of resignation? I've known of some people who provide one to act as official proof of your resignation, and you can indicate things such as giving them three weeks notice.
Anyway, you're probably better off just sticking to the three weeks you've already said you've given them. If you've already told your future employer your start date, you don't want to start off on the wrong foot and upset the new bosses. And some companies will try to pile work on anyone who says they are leaving. Sometimes it's valuable work, but other times it will be a form of punishment. Sad, but true.
I hate to say it, but if you don't finish something, what are they really going to do to you? I know a lot of people have a sense of professional conduct, and I've personally stayed late at jobs on my last day to finish some stuff off, but if they are going to be blatant jerks, I don't really think you owe them anything.
As long as you're not screwing anyone over too harshly, I don't think there's a problem with you leaving when you originally planned. From the sounds of it, it's not a very nice place to work, so you're probably better off leaving as soon as you can and getting a fresh start. Hopefully your new place of employment will be nice. You never know until you actually start working there (speaking from experience).
Oh, and I'd be curious if HR had an exit interview planned with you. This is something you could bring up there or contact HR prior to leaving, in writing. This decision probably plans on how objective your HR department is. No harm in not wanting to rock the boat, but I don't think you can let your previous employer push you around like that.
Urban planning can be good and bad. Certainly Central Park is a win, but highways largely suck when they are run through existing cities.
What is the alternative, though? If you have the highways avoid the major city area, you are just adding more local traffic as people try to get to and from the highway.
You mention the University of Maryland. Are you near DC or Baltimore? The beltways always confused me. Since the highways were never straight (they were big circles around the cities), you couldn't really go directly anywhere. You always had to go around the beltway to get anywhere, which probably increased total distance driven. And it's debatable if there's any traffic benefit, as traffic in the DC area is probably some of the worst in the country.
Mod parent up.
Mistakes are (unfortunately) a part of our field. The ones who learn from it are the ones who become better developers. If they seem uninterested in a topic during the interview, there's no way they'll be interested once they come on board. Also, the lack of interest could be an indicator of lack of knowledge of the actual issue.
Ideally, you want the people who did the work behind a successful project. Lots of people can write that they did X, Y, Z on their resume, but when you get them in person, you should dig a little deeper to find out more about them. If you are familiar with the topic, you should be able to tell fairly quickly if they were the one to actually do the work, or just part of the team and taking credit for someone else's work (which happens quite often).
Another thing to keep in mind is that your position should be as a gatekeeper to make your work and your organization better. I've seen people say to hire someone simply because they were getting sick of interviewing people. Or someone was "good enough." Or the person is not very good, but maybe the team can put them on low-priority items. If you let poor individuals into your organization, you are negatively impacting your overall ability. Months later, when your team is full of sub-par members, dragging you down, you're going to be in trouble.
This isn't isolated to experienced people, but you have to ask yourself, "do you want to work with this person?" If the answer is "no," then you should pass on them. You don't have to be best friends, but you have to be able to have a constructive work relationship. The smartest guy in a world, if he's a jerk, will be very painful to work with.
And you shouldn't automatically assume someone without a lot of experience won't care or get things done. I'm sure there were plenty of school projects where they pulled an all-nighter, came across some interesting problems, or other things similar to folks who work have faced. I've seen people with years of experience who have coasted along in their careers, getting lucky enough to work with people who cared enough and were smart enough to make up for their lack of contribution. In some ways, younger folks haven't had the time to develop bad habits or been demoralized over the years to the point of not caring any more.
Last thing I can add is to be thorough. It's OK for an interview to go long. In fact, that's probably a *good* sign. They should be able to into great detail some of the issues they've faced in their experience. Don't be afraid to ask them to write some code, draw some diagrams, etc. You'd be surprised how many people have struggle when I've asked them to simply write a for loop. I hate to say it, but everyone can say, "I'd optimize it, I'd refactor it, etc." Let them *show* you how they'd do it. The good ones will have no problem with that, and it will improve their opinion of you, hopefully making them more likely to consider accepting an offer. Of the bad jobs I've had, I can look back on the interviews and see how little digging they did into my skills and knowledge, most likely worried they'd expose their own lack of them.
I haven't been keeping up on tuition rates, but the summary specifically states "private universities." When I was college-age (mid-to-late 90s), private university cost approximately $25,000, including room and board. So, this would be the equivalent of 4 students out of their entire student body.
I *think* current rates are closer to $40,000 per year. So, this is 2.5 students (would hate to be that .5 guy).
So, for an individual, this is quite a bit of money. But, for a large organization with pretty significant funding, probably not all that much.
As others have noted, when you are doing an interview, you should also be evaluating the company and trying to decide if you want to work there. If you are lucky, you will receive multiple offers when interviewing or be in a position where you don't need to take a job that you think will be bad.
I ended up taking a few jobs with government contracting companies. Their interviews were jokes. They raised red flags, but I chose to ignore them. During one interview, the hardest question I received was, "if we gave you business requirements, could you write code?" I answered "yes," expecting more questions, but that was pretty much it. I was offered the position, accepted, and then had a very interesting experience working for the federal government.
In another interview, my only contact with the company was via phone interviews and an off-site meeting with the project manager (at a Starbucks just a few blocks from their office). I kept telling them I could come on-site, but it never happened. This should have raised more red flags, but I was desperate to leave the previous place. When I started, they told me that I wouldn't be given a network account for 30 days, so I had nothing to do. The tech lead didn't ask anything particularly difficult during the interview, just some very lightweight things like, "where would you code business logic? in the presentation layer?" It was a step up from the previous place, and the technologies they were using were appealing, so I took the offer. After a few months, it became obvious that the reason the interview was so easy was because the tech lead didn't really have much technical knowledge. In fact, there were huge portions of the code base he didn't understand. Other developers who were on the project before him wrote their code, isolated from the other developers, padded their resumes, and then left once the initial version of the project completed. And all of those interesting technologies? They were either incorrectly implemented/designed, or they were just not used. But, again, the tech lead wouldn't know, because he was totally unqualified.
So, keep in mind that most smart, hard-working people want to work with other, smart, hard-working people. They will do their best to make sure you are qualified before saying, "yes, I want to work with this person." Yes, there are lots of organizations that put needless obstacles, usually from HR. But if the interviewers are easily impressed with just a few buzzwords on a resume, that's a good sign that you should look elsewhere.
so as to share those TWO WHOLE EMAILS
When I read the summary, I had the impression that the first was an e-mail exchange. Looking at the number of replies, I'm guessing 7 e-mails. Not very exciting, but that's why it's "Idle." :)
If they (the technology department) were smart, they would make it a practical interview. Ask the interviewee if they can gain administrative access to the system. If they say yes, let them try. If they can't do it, you thank them, but let them know that they aren't qualified for the position. If they *can* gain access, you thank them, and let them know that the position is no longer required.~
I'm not immensely knowledgeable about politics, but a lot of people feel that the US government has pretty much become a 2-party competition, and elected officials generally follow party lines. So, depending on the context of the comment, it could either be a compliment or an insult.
As a compliment, you can think of him as someone who thinks outside of the normal party lines. I believe McCain has co-sponsored bills with Democratic members of Congress. While this would seem to be common sense (being able to compromise with others), not everyone views that way. Some look at his as being disloyal or maybe not tough enough.
McCain has been called "not conservative enough" by some, and that was meant as an insult. They worry that he won't push the traditionally Republican viewpoints (opposition to abortion, for example).
It probably doesn't need to be pointed out, but US politics is in poor shape. It's not the fault of either party, but a collective failure. I'm not sure exactly when, but it almost feels like the venom in government got considerably stronger during Bill Clinton's presidency. I'm not saying its his fault, but if you look at Clinton, then George W. Bush, and now this round of campaigning, it seems like politics has just become petty and people are focusing on the smallest, silly things. I'm not necessarily an Obama support, but there were some press trying to question his patriotism because he wasn't wearing a US flag pin. Just silly.
As for effective government, don't make me laugh. The bureaucracy is just ridiculous. Most people in government (both elected official and civil servants) aren't interested in making a difference. They just want the status quo and to continue living off tax revenue.
Sorry for an unfocused and slightly rambling comment. I spent a couple of years working in government, and it was just very depressing to see how low the bar was set.
Another thing to consider is that you are picking up some (hopefully) beneficial skills to further your career. Not just technical skills, but some business skills and learning how office politics work.
Remember those things (as well as a the bad) when you look for another job. You can try to figure out if your new place will be a better fit for you during the interview process. You don't have to ask the manager if he's a glory-hog, but perhaps you can ask the developers who interview you how appreciated they feel and what the work dynamic is like.
And at the very least, it sounds like you got a nice line item to put onto your resume.
I think you're missing the main reason he was hired. He wasn't hired for his great managerial skills. He was hired because he was a native English-speaker. He's the face/voice that the company would like to present back to their English customers.
So, while it's admirable that you really want to develop your skills, you have to remember that sometimes the perception is what matters more (to some folks, at least).
I used to work for the federal government, and I am now a contractor. Everything you feared about the level of incompetence in the government is true and probably worse than you feared.
I had to take a "privacy awareness" exam, which covered how to handle sensitive data. The exam began with a summary of the various laws that federal employees are required to follow. Then, there was a multiple choice test. The problem was that if you answered a question incorrectly, you were immediately told so, and given the opportunity to re-answer the question. There was no limit to the number of incorrect responses you could supply. You were basically given the question until you answered correctly.
So, eventually, you pass this exam, and every federal employee has now passed a rigorous data security certification. It's all bullshit. There may be a few people who genuinely care about the work they do, but the vast majority are only concerned with their pensions and their next scheduled pay increase.
Want to know what the end of result of this study is? Probably nothing (I admit, I didn't read the article). But most employee unions are so strong, that management couldn't really do anything if they wanted to.
Every IT stereotype involving bad management is just amplified in the public sector. And when you throw in worker bees who just don't care, and, even if they did, are too incapable of doing anything, it's just a recipe for disaster.
That's what really pissed me off when I was in the biz. I would ask to work from home and I was ALWAYS told that, "No, we need you here to do your work."
So, I would commute in every fucking day. Then, you guessed it, my job (and others'), were sent over seas to India. Yep, they needed their IT workers there all right!
I brought this point up once with a former boss (we've both since moved on to better things, previous company had way too much stupidity), and his argument was that the second my pay rate was the same as a developer in India, he was sure he'd be able to arrange some type of telecommuting deal with the higher-ups. Just something to keep in mind. Sometimes all folks really care about is the bottom line.
I'm too lazy to take a look at the coursework, but I think it really depends. I think, on paper, you'd be better off with a Master's in Computer Science than in Software Engineering. I can see some situations where someone might initially be impressed you have an advanced degree, and then be somewhat disappointed by what the degree is in (just my opinion, though, I'm sure others would disagree).
Anyway, in my Master's program, I actually found the software engineering classes to be the most interesting, so if it's something that could help you improve your skills, I think it's worth considering. If you're lucky, then your job provides you with an environment (including colleagues) that stimulate your mind and help you develop your skills. A program like this might be nice in that it formalizes something of this. If your current job doesn't provide any of this, then this program might be nice for you.
Another potential benefit might be that it could expose you to some new technologies/software packages. Some folks need something formal to get them off their butts, while others are very good self-starters.
Sorry the advice is a bit unfocused. Anyway, the last thing I'd add is to not worry too much about your GPA. I've recently gotten a gig with a government contracting company, and I've noticed on some job applications (including federal ones), they seem to care about GPA. But I've always heard once you're in the workforce, no one cares what your GPA was. This might be more of mindset in the private sector. They care about whether or not you can get the work done, and how well your personality will mesh with the current team.
I went to a pretty good school for undergrad and grad school (reputation-wise), and I found myself working for people who went to places that some folks would snicker at. So, the school you went to, while important, isn't a deal-breaker.
Just an FYI, but there is some outsourcing of medical care happening. Here's a brief article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6199772/site/newsweek/ .
I also recall reading an article a year or so ago (I believe in Newsweek) of a man who traveled to India to receive some type of heart operation. Rather than go through the expensive US healthcare system, he decided to go to India. He was able to receive what he felt was a comparable level of care, but at a fraction of the cost. He was also able to receive luxury accomodations and was treated like a king.
So, this is purely anecdotal (feel free to look for the article), but it shows anything is possible. Of course, this isn't quite outsourcing as people in IT face. And I don't think you'd ever see the medical profession held in such low regards as IT, but it's still interesting (IMO, at least).
Well, you have to consider that there will be costs associated with switching over. There's manpower to actually install and configure the software, and then there's training and learning curve. All for what? To be doing the same stuff you were before. So, it might not be appealing to your boss from that perspective (this is assuming that you guys aren't constantly upgrading MS apps).
Your best opportunity with your boss might be when contracts/licenses are being renewed, or when you guys need a new application, and an open source solution might work out better.
Note: Of course, it's entirely possible your boss is just an ass, although the two are probably not mutually exclusive. :)
Have you considered living with a roommate to save some money? College gave me enough experience to know that I never wanted a roommate again, but others are probably more open-minded.
Opinions are like... some part of the body. ;) Anyway, this is also personal preference, but my guess is that you would not have a large portion of the graduate population that would want to live in India. When most people idealizae living abroad, they usually think of Europe, *maybe* Japan, or some other places which have a certain level of trendiness to them. India doesn't fit my image of that. But, like you said, 120k isn't actually a lot of people. Also, just want to point out that I don't think my opinion on this particular topic is any more valid than yours, just different.
First, there's racism everywhere. Anyway, I just wanted to give a counterexample. I've personally never been to Japan, but from the people I've spoken to, I wouldn't go so far as to say that foreigners are regarded like a "monkey on display at the zoo."
Depending on how foreign you look, you might actually get quite a bit of positive attention. I've had caucasian friends talk about being approached by little kids who are curious. Other times, they run into people that want to practice some English. Last, but not least, there is a decent segment of girls that are interested in dating non-Asian guys. Whether this is an issue of genuine attraction, exotic factor, or "shock value" probably varies from person-to-person, though.
Just a note about the girls, just because you show up and don't look Asian doesn't mean that there will be hordes of girls fighting over you. So don't book that plane ticket quite yet. ;)
Not entirely sure why you got the zoo-animal-criminal treatment... but I'm sure everyone's experiences vary.
I agree with you to an extent, but they'd be much better off to just make quality products from the start, rather than replacing a defective product with another potentially defective one. I'm more concerned with the quality of the product that with the quality of the warranty. If it's a great product, then I might not even have to care about the warranty.
Taken from a link provider by another /.er:
So, it's great that I have a new drive that might betray me like its predecessor, but what about all of my DATA? Oh, I see, I'm SOL...
I personally have 3 credit cards and 1 banking card. I'm curious what will happen if/when multiple companies pick up on this technology? If I wave my wallet near some type of scanner, which card will be selected?