IBM looking for 12 years’ experience in Kubernetes administration
intellijobs.ai
intellijobs.ai
> It required 4+ years of experience in FastAPI.
> I couldn't apply as I only have 1.5+ years of experience since I created that thing.
I'm not even that old (born in the 80s), but is that the style adults use now?
That’s a pretty standard meaning for that emoji, despite the subtle shade of its meaning, because it’s quite common on Twitter or Instagram that you want to humble-brag about “what they missed out on”, but you also want to make it explicit that you realize that you’re doing so (a bit like sarcasm-flagging.)
The fourth line’s emoji is presumably a substitute for a “refresh” (or more precisely, “recompute”) icon, since we don’t actually have one of those.
...which is rather uncommon usage; but the proper emotion (“knowing but non-judgemental stare, as if a parent waiting for their child to figure out that they’re supposed to close the fridge after taking something from it”) isn’t a standard Unicode emoji... yet. (But nearly every Discord group I’m in has a custom one for that purpose!)
tip: stop using facebook.
Why? The experience and intelligence of the recruiter has almost zero correlation to the experience and intelligence of the people you'd be working with.
Recruiting people / HR are just an administrative barrier to get through. Once you speak to the actual team you'd be working with, you can start being more discerning of the quality of the people.
It shouldn't. A well-run company should refuse to work with recruiters who lack experience and intelligence.
Hiring is the most important thing managers do. If they suck at that it really doesn’t matter if they are great at other things.
they churn out these job requirements daily
the person you speak with on the phone wasn't involved with writing it, just correct them and get to the first technical person as soon as possible.
this is done at companies of all sizes, whether it is IBM, Google, Uber, Pinterest, as well as expected in non-tech companies.
you guys are in for a rude awakening if you think this is still an employees market in choosing companies based on the smallest, most irrelevant and nuanced signals of operational efficiency
Could I have been wrong? Of course. All I said was I was dis-interested, I had better opportunities with people who I understood and who understood me.
That's really lucky.
There are a lot of people who don't value my skillset who I thought should, and it isn't clear if people reach out to me because they like something I brought to the world that has caught on now, or if it is a totally random recruitment bot sending transactional messages.
All while the things I was working on over the last decade were not respected at the time I was working on them.
For employment, seems better for me to use variations of my name and more generic experience. Otherwise people just seem to want to have me in the room but not really interested in hiring me, or like they expect a more mythical and profound experience.
Really? Because I've seen them copy/paste job requirements and just spitball the "years exp" number. They're just trying to fill as many roles as possible, and getting IT folks to put together job requirements is time consuming, so they often re-use old requirement and only update the language/tech on it.
I've seen multiple job postings for my teams where somewhere in the HR->recruiting pipeline the (correct) job requirements were replaced with "standard" requirements.
Having been both a manager and an IC I strongly believe that hiring is of the utmost importance. The same thoughtfulness, care, and responsibility that goes into leading engineering teams that are in charge of mission critical systems must extend to the hiring process or else everything else is at risk. A single bad or even just not great hire can be devastating to a team. A company with a culture that is just recruiters funneling candidates thoughtlessly is guaranteed to fail over time.
Sure if you need a job or aren’t in an employees market you might have to suck it up and take that job. I get that. I would advise saving a lot more than usual as that charade of hoop jumping is going to result in layoffs/bankruptcy in the mid to long term. Also, don’t expect them to be any more thoughtful in the layoffs than they were in the hiring.
Sure a lot of big companies do thoughtless hiring and that might work for awhile when you just need to scale thoughtlessly but a lot of big companies also get their lunch eaten by smaller companies with more thoughtful managers (ex. IBM, MSFT pre Nadella, possibly Google now)
Good recruiters are able to match a candidate's skills with the skills required for the role they're recruiting for. If they can't do that, they are bad at their job and are more often than not wasting the time you could be spending with a recruiter who knows the industry they're working in.
If they got that aspect wrong, what else are they getting wrong? Are you willing to waste time and money going through the interview process just to find out that the role isn't a good fit, even though the recruiter said it was?
Everyone is trying to help each other; don't let go of potentially great opportunities due to these misconceptions.
You should pretend the recruiter - any recruiter is a compulsive liar, and put exactly zero value on whether or not they claim the role is a good fit. They are never going to interact with you again, they may not understand you or the role, and they are financially incentivised to bullshit to you.
Ignore what they say, and judge whether or not the role is a good fit for yourself. I wouldn't hold a good recruiter as a positive sign for a job, nor would I hold a shitty recruiter as a red flag.
If they are so stupid as to do this, I wouldn’t want to work for them either.
HR is where things can go very wrong.
How do you figure? If you're perfectly qualified for a job and they don't seem to recognize that, what are they selecting for? You don't think that incompetence would have an impact on the quality of the team you'd be joining?
My assumption is, a team needs personel and so the team manager makes a request to hr with a list of requirements for said recruit. Or at least that's how it seems like it should be.
Along the way, should not someone who put together that list of requirements have some idea of what they were asking for?
I've only worked at small enough business we had one general manager in charge of hiring. If one of the sections of our work needed employees, job postings would be created with those specific positions in mind, with the specific requirements of that position figured out by usually the most experienced person in that position and passed along to the manager.
Again, this may just be my ignorance, but, if it wasn't the hr person that wrote the requirements, wouldn't it have been someone that should have known better?
So lie. It's what they want.
And if you don't, someone else will.
Perhaps we need recruiter-baiters: people who will, as a hobby, intentionally get recruiters to pass them on to companies, at which point they will (under an assumed identity) say or do something so egregious that it will poison the recruiter’s relationship with the company.
At least, that’s what the recruiters at my company do.
Because they don't want to. The recruiter's point stands from the other perspective too: if the technical people wanted their job requirements to be perfect, they'd spend time writing them and not hiring recruiters to do it instead.
Frankly, I'm not that concerned that the job requirements demanded more years of .NET experience then it was possible to have. I am more concerned about all the other requirements that were listed on that job description which were just as wrong but in a way that was not obvious.
Consider the analogy to all of the exonerations of convicted prisoners we have had since DNA analysis became possible. The minor problem is that hundreds of innocent people were held in prison for years before DNA analysis proved they were innocent. The bigger problem is that we have now demonstrated that the legal process has a significant rate of error, meaning that there are tens of thousands of innocent people serving years in prison whose cases didn't happen to permit exoneration by DNA.
That line in the job requirements that specifies you must have a college degree -- is that unnecessarily excluding a lot of qualified candidates? The general tendency to request more expertise and years of experience than are really needed -- is that driving off candidates with lower levels of self-aggrandizement? If it is, does that have anything to do with the deplorable number of women succeeding in our industry?
Asking for 12 years experience in Kubernetes isn't just a silly error: it is an unmistakable sign of a much deeper problem.
Outside of careers requiring vocational degrees (like engineering), yes - but for any job posting simply requiring a degree (any degree) has a valuable selective effect of eliminating swathes of objectively unqualified and less-qualified candidates and thus shrinking the pool of people you'd need to call-in for an on-site interview - even though many objectively qualified but non-degree-holding candidates would be eliminated unfairly.
It's a trade-off based around how much value you assign to your recruiter's time.
I do feel that everyone who has been around the block knows that job requirements are nice to haves rather than need to haves. Otherwise no one would get hired.
On the other hand, I do think there are issues with how recruiters use descriptions that imply expectations that candidates have certain qualities like obsession with coding outside of work, being a tech bro, etc. And I do think some of the job requirement stuff overlaps. It makes it difficult for people who can do the work to feel comfortable applying and obviously is a negative for people who feel excluded from hacker culture which obviously does include minorities and women.
Add the outright dishonest recruiters ("Oh don't worry about that ultra short start date, I have only put that in there so that people apply faster!" - one 20something HR dude trying to rope me into a BS job ...) to the mix and then companies are wondering why they "can't find talent" and why skilled people have difficulties to find jobs.
If for example, a case where a person is discovered to have been wrongly accused and incarcerated would trigger a very serious investigation of the specific people that were involved in that decision (judge, jury, lawyers, experts etc), the system would be much more careful with such acts.
For the criminal justice system in the US, one of the clearest implications is that we should allow lawyers -- or at least judges -- to inform jurors about the basics of what we know about witness reliability. Because a huge portion of those we now know to have been falsely convicted we're convicted solely or primarily on the basis of witnesses.
For hiring, I think it means we should deemphasize filtering out candidates using some basic thresholds (like X years experience with Y) and emphasize opportunities for the candidates to demonstrate the skills they will use on the job.
[1] - https://hbr.org/2014/08/why-women-dont-apply-for-jobs-unless...
I suggest re-examining the response you had based on understandings of gender issues in tech.
Gender inequality in tech is a much deeper issue that starts much earlier in life. And it's possible the ridiculous requirement of 12 years of kubernetes itself perpetuates the issue because it immediately preferences people who came up with the OG attitude.
Tribalism around gender, race, nationality etc. serves only to divide us into smaller and smaller groups.
But this doesn't pass muster, it doesn't require knowing the technology, just a quick search of when the language was invented
May as well be a truck driver recruiter who doesn't know what a CDL is. Or a real estate agent that can't search MLS.
Accurate? No, I don't think that's the correct word. The value was changed, but it was gibberish before and remains gibberish afterwards.
So we can't call it a corporate reorganization for Dilbertian process reasons and we're only transferring one person anyway, so we'll abuse the hire/fire/transfer process and put in hilarious requirements like a decade of experience with javascript react framework or this K8S ad.
Or the bosses nephew intern'd with us and we have been ordered to make sure the nephew and only the nephew get hired full time and his resume hilariously listed he's been "doing computer stuff for more than ten years; also does react framework" and we'll translate that into a minimum of a decade of react experience LOL.
This also shows up in stealth ageism. The last I18N guy doing the Spanish L10N project acted too childish for a professional office causing expensive chaos; OK then the next hire "needs" at least 30 years of experience in Spanish language I18N and L10N projects; really all we wanted was a bilingual translator who was not childish by nature of being at least 30 years old. The world's full of 30-something children but the odds are better than 20-something children. We already decided to hire one of the dev's friends who was 35 so all we need to do is make sure nobody else applies. So this project "needs" someone who's spoken Spanish for 30 years to translate stop and go to pare y siga, LOL. Well L10N always ends up being a lot more than merely translating words but whatever.
Or when they want very external applicants.
- Arbitrary number years of experience required.
- Absolute requirements on very specific tools and environments.
- Minimum Masters degree, even though the work isn't anywhere near that.
- Strong preference for applicants that are well known with the industry.
- Very short deadline.
If it's also a gov. job, then that almost definitely seals the deal that it's for someone internal.
Sadly, with a lot of gov. jobs, there's so much bureaucracy and laws/regulations to navigate around, that it's often impossible to "just" promote someone internal to a new position / title. The job needs to get posted around, and often times there are external boards that will have the final say.
This is obviously to fight and a CYA process against nepotism etc., but also makes it a real pain to get people.
When I was younger, I never thought of it as a bad thing, since it scared away those who weren't bold enough to apply for the job - ultimately reducing the competition for the jobs that I've applied for.
Over the past 3 decades, I've never met the qualifications for any job that I've landed, and I always tell others to apply for tech jobs even if they only meet a small number of the requisites for this same reason. Most are surprised to see how many times they get contacted for an interview.
Of course, this practice is slowly changing today since many talented applicants don't feel comfortable enough to apply, which ultimately equates to lost opportunity for the organization. For example, an HR manager recently told me that she doesn't put the word "rockstar" on developer job ads anymore because HR studies show that the term turns off the female and Gen-Z demographics.
However, it holds back a lot of people who simply do not know that job descriptions are bullshit. Being bold is one thing, being a compulsive bullshitter is another. You probably do not want the latter on the team, unless you work at IBM specifically.
And if it is a company itself advertising like this, that reeks of the "bro" culture, crazy hours and similar problems.
That's pretty big red flag for me and I am certainly neither female nor Gen-Z (up in my mid-40s now).
"full-stack" is a buzzword now? How else would you describe a role where you'll be doing backend and frontend?
Full-stack in its common usage doesn't mean "everything and nothing." People might disagree about where the exact boundaries are, but there are a lot of people who definitely don't count by any definition so it does convey information.
Those who only work with HTML & CSS & client-side javascript are definitely not doing full-stack development. Nor or those doing purely server-side work, database administration, cloud computing, systems/network programming, etc. that never involves a UI with user interaction of any kind. That's quite a lot of people who would immediately understand that they don't meet the qualifications for a position that requires experience as a full stack developer.
That is the typical answer I see; the opinion of anyone who disagrees with your opinion is inherently invalid. YOU know what "full stack" means, anyone who thinks it's something else is wrong.
In the embedded world, a full stack developer would be someone who can read electrical schematics, write drivers, write libraries, and by the time you've done all of that the UI part is, comparatively, trivial.
Been there, done it, would 100% recommend it. You feel much closer to your code than when 10 abstraction layers are in the way.
Sometimes it reduces it too far, though, and the company fails to fill the position.
I did not apply to a job that seemed otherwise an ideal fit because they wanted a master's degree in CS, and my degree was a mere bachelor's in mathematics from Caltech. (At the time, Caltech's CS program only offered graduate degrees. They had all the usual undergraduate CS courses, which I had taken, but simply had not yet set up a degree program for the bachelor's so all us would-be CS majors actually got our degrees in something else. Usually math or physics or EE).
Six months later they were still looking and a headhunter sent them my resume. I was quickly hired.
By asking for more than they actually needed, the position went unfilled for at least 6 extra months and they had to pay a headhunter 10% of my salary.
The routine is to take you but make you feel like they do you a favor by taking you with less exp than it was originally stated.
Alternatively, I can also imagine recruiters just following familiar patterns for increasing "required" experience levels as they "level-up" the job description as a crutch for articulating requirements. But the problem here isn't the recruiters, they are just instruments. They often shouldn't be drafting the initial baseline JD at all and should never be posting the final one without approval.
I feel this reflects poorly--in public--on a company's culture. The glossy "work here" page means nothing if there's no follow through in practice. A human may have spent days researching your company and preparing a cover letter, and you can't even click the "no" button?
The workflow system, at the very least, should provide state feedback: received, in review, no, or "let's talk".
The common answer to this question is, it would take way too long to answer these thousands of candidates that are applying to your position. Obviously, that's nonsense unless you're Google or Facebook.
At huge companies, I suspect CVs just get lost in the system somewhere when they don't have the correct keywords for automated parsing. In that case, you'll hear no response because no human has seen the CV.
At smaller companies, I honestly don't think that a response of "we decided not to go further with the CV, but thank you for applying, and please, feel free to apply to any other positions for different consideration" would be too much to ask.
As a manager, you probably only see applicants that were filtered by HR and applied for your team or department specifically, while HR has to view all the applicants across the entire company, that's a whole order of magnitude more.
You apply to Position P. Recruiter hires someone for P and closes the req. At that point, the bot should send everyone in the wait bucket for P a mail saying "thanks P has been filled, feel free to apply to similar roles R and S".
It would take zero extra recruiter time.
This can be automated, and several companies already do this.
I remember that it I felt embarassed and was frankly a bit ashamed that I hadn't received a reply. It took a while before I realized that I had in fact gotten ghosted as well. I waited for a reply from them for weeks. My self esteem took a definite hit from that. This was about 5 years ago now, so I've since gotten over it - but it changed my perception of Google as an employer from a place I'd be lucky to work at, to a place that I would have a really hard time applying for a job at again.
Another data point: 30 years exp, I just finished a job search for remote s/w. Total time to sign was about 5 weeks.
* 10 cold applications, all with good fits and detailed covers and research: 1 cold no; 1 few interviews then a no; 8 ghosts after bot ack
* 1 internal referral: got to final talks
* A few external recruiter engagements: two final talks; accepted one of these; and a few ghosts
External recruiters can be a pain but they have one superpower: the ear of their client.
I've noticed more companies following up with their rejections this year than I did a few years ago. Those that go out of their way to reply get a thank you from me no matter what the outcome is.
Fluent English (please Scottish accent), Chinese (Teochew) and Yarawi (written and spoken)
Additional bonus >22y in a DevOp leader position.
We welcome you in a team of hard working individuals, we are a startup so please bring your own chair and table and computer, but we have a really good coffeemaker (bring your own beans/milk/sugar)
24x7 Availability....
The recruiter must have thought that listing every tech the applicant ever used was a good idea. Even long discontinued products. And they seemingly added typos, turned things into acronyms incorrectly, listed tech under incorrect categories, etc. They were so painful to read and I'd imagine would have embarrassed the candidates if they ever saw them. I was going to give a "no" for all of them before I caught on that the recruiter was butchering them. With that context, some were OK and some of those passed the interview.
I suspect the reason for this is that some companies just do keyword matching, so the resume becomes tech jargon word salad to survive poorly written filters.
Seeing this process has convinced me that engineers should review resumes (and in the context of the IBM post, write/review job descriptions). I've gotten fast at it, but only when the candidate writes their own. I think next time I'll ask the recruiter to send a resume the applicant wrote, or just default to "no".
JavaScript - yes
Javascript - yes
javascript - yes
JAVASCRIPT - no
JAVAScript - no
I'm sure Gosling, Stroustrup, etc. have all been in the position to make similar jokes.
(By the way, he never went on about who his father was, at least not that I heard, though occasionally wore Java logo stuff, because who wouldn’t...)
And so if it means there's recruiters asking for dumb things like this, sure, that's bad, but at least they're looking for experience and skillset rather than mental gymnastics. Though I suppose they could be looking for both. That would suck.
In 1995 a recruiter called me saying he has a position for someone with 5 years of Windows NT experience. (WNT shipped officially in 1993)
I told him hat if he finds someone, I’d him them myself! I’ve never met a person that owns a time machine!
He was very gracious about it.
Note that I'm not just talking about US. Most countries in Europe have the Labour Market tests requirement before a foreigner can be sponsored for the position.
Whoever issues the letter assumes liability for what they attest to.
It's not like people don't lie on these forms and get falsified evidence. There are cases of people getting caught, and people who did attest to the falsified evidence have had their green cards revoked and deported.
Kinda like IRS I guess.
Edit: Reread this and realized it might sound like I'm anti-India. I'm not. I'm American but if I was in the job market and could get a work visa I'd consider moving to India. It's a beautiful country and it's a lot cheaper than the US.
a) You must not apply unless you meet all of the minimum prerequisites as stated on the listing
b) Lying in any way on the form is tantamount to committing a felony
If IBM realizes their mistake and corrects the listing, are they obligated to immediately reject all of the previous applicants who knowingly submitted false information on their application because the claim was, by definition, impossible?
Some people drive cars their whole lives and still get nervous in parking lots, freeways. Some kids are competent sliding on snow at 60 mph on mtn passes. Time doing is ridic.
This is true in the same way on engineering. Too many kids deploy feature and release it in production without testing or without accounting edge cases that at scale cause massive problem to the user base. While this could not be a problem in a startup it's a big issue in traditional corporation and where error are not an option (you wouldn't consider giving the software of a medical device to somehow who has demonstrates skills but don't know what issues may cause)
Like an African proverb says: If you want go fast, go alone. If you want go far go together
We went with the generalist under the theory you’re advocating and it was a disaster. The people we hired learned Go, but it takes a while to grok the paradigms and really develop a mental model for what’s going on under the hood. Those hiring choices cost us a lot of grief and probably several months of development time as they made choices that were ostensibly reasonable in other languages/frameworks, but didn’t necessarily hold in Golang.
In the future if I require someone for something specific, say k8s, I’m hiring someone with direct lengthy experience in k8s and not a devops expert who has some experience with k8s.
Lets say you're hiring for a Java position to make web apps. Is a better candidate someone with lots of desktop Java experience, or someone with lots of Django experience? The answer is of course, it depends. On the person, the job etc. I'd interview both and it's probable the second person has more relevant skills.
The problem with putting emphasis on years of experience is that the second person might not get through the HR filter.
If you're scaling up quickly or employing a bunch of people to immediately work on a new project, and expect them to stay an average of 2 years, you need preexisting experience.
If you're in a company where people stay on average 4-5 years and, and there's already a well established team with a good set of conventions and technical leadership, a generalist is probably a better call.
That being the case, I imagine that sometimes these things get lost in translation in large corporations and don't literally mean what you think they mean.
I imagine what they are looking for is someone who can demonstrate how their 12+ years experience can be applied to that technology.
Hiring Manager: I need a person with 10+ years of exp
Sourcer/recruiter: Ok, what skillz?
Hiring Manager: Cloud, Dev, Ops, SysAdmin - 10 years
Sourcer/recruiter: mhmm, what else?
Hiring Manager: Oh, also, someone with good k8s experience will be great!
Sourcer/recruiter: so, that's like, how many years?
Hiring Manager: one or two on top of the ones I said before
Sourcer/recruiter: Got it!
This "12+ years with k8s" "15 yrs with React" "10 years with Powershell 5" situation is because of such disconnect. Having worked in that industry sector has made me so aware of how broken hiring is, it is such a dark and gloomy present and future - aided by more tools that get put by people who do not really want to solve the problem but just make it someone else's.
Field engineer stares at table and wants it to swallow him up.
Sun rep just smiles back like nothing is wrong.
That salesman was hugely successful, btw.
"...anomaly detection solutions ... leveraging an ensemble of Deep learning and LSTM models. Natural Language Processing for entity, topic clusters and relationship extraction. Text Analytics in human generated tickets and correlation with event tickets for event noise reduction. Apply Natural Language Classification and RNN algorithms to automatically route tickets... Text mining, message clustering / templatization, Logs to metrics, anomaly detection, event annotation and sequencing... for each mainframe batch job ... Identify Anomalies ... using sequence mining techniques"
In all it is an interesting product but it is going to take a lot of people with different skills to make that happen. Many of those areas such as "entity and relationship extraction" and "anomaly detection solutions ... [for] event noise reduction" are still almost pre-paradigmatic from the viewpoint of a working engineer.
The best interpretation I have is that they are hiring a large platoon or small company of software developers, data scientists, project managers, you name it. They are probably using a distributed version of UIMA that spins up at least one container per dev in the production system (because "microservices".)
The person they are hiring here is in charge of keeping that monster going at the K8s level. They may need to settle for hiring 12 people with 1 year of experience, but that would blow their budget -- if the whole team worked that way it would get bloated to a mid-sized or large battalion.
I don't see why they don't just run the system on one of the mainframes it is monitoring. With Parallel Sysplex, Workload Manager, etc. IBM had better stuff than VMWare, Docker, K8S, Zookeeper in the 1990s when they made the transition from bipolar to CMOS and had to go parallel to make up for the single-thread performance loss. z15 mainframes are just crammed with PCIe slots so they should have no problem attaching a tensor accelerator to one.
Trouble is, people who know how to administer mainframes are even harder to find than K8S experts.
Took 5 tries with my new manager filling it out for me because even he didn't know the requirements. This was an internship that assumed the applicants were in college but still required 4+ years in java and c++ - neither of which I touched the entire time I was there.
I’ll have to apply for the RUST job I’ve been keeping an eye on. 12 years experience should put me on a short shortlist.
This will pre-select suitable candidates that can spout as much gibberish and misunderstandings as their bureaucracy is obviously already used to.
https://www.forensicfocus.com/forums/employment-and-career-i...
Doing so enables him to get higher pay band set for the position and get better candidates who might accept, even if they have less experience.
https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/lisa11/tech/full_papers... https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/atc10/tech/full_papers/...
E.g., if I had 6 systems for 3 years, that’s 18 years experience on the resume.
PS: I'd only do this on resume copies sent to companies with obviously impossible experience requirements like this one. For companies with experience requirements that are actually obtainable, I'd just put the usual number of years of my lifespan I've worked with the technology.
Shouldn’t be on front page HN.
Its not like IBM team/dept is actually requiring this.
I clicked into this thinking oh maybe it had a long alpha/beta and IBM is doing something really interesting and needed someone with a deep history.
The unstated half of this is that the honest programmer would say, "Well that's clearly impossible, I should either let them know or not apply," while the sleazy programmer tells the recruiter with a straight face that yes, he has the requisite 10 years' Swift experience, and gets the job.
The job descriptions (especially in hidebound companies like Big Blue) tend to have mandated experience levels.
HR folks aren't engineers, so they should not be expected to know.
However, this should be highly embarrassing to the hiring manager, who I'm sure, was handed the ad text for approval, and probably rubberstamped it without thinking.
If you job description is to find someone to fill a position you should know what that position is. This is middle management "I don't need to know exactly what I'm managing" levels of cow manure.
The vast number of employees at corporations over a certain size are non-tech, with specialties in Marketing, Sales, Finance, Administration, Support, Manufacturing, etc.
I see that a lot of tech companies have recruiters that are quite close to their teams. I know that Facebook and Apple do this, as they have contacted me in the past.
Those types of recruiters wouldn't make the same mistake, but they are not common in many corporations.
Yeah, so make the engineers produce the requirements for the particular jobs. HR should not be in the business of defining technical requirements for jobs.
That was why it was so important for me to review the job descriptions. It was often an iterative process.
I’ve seen too many horribly mangled resumes from the hiring side and I spend time at least once per quarter keeping my resume up to date.
Translated: we want to hire Chris Lattner (who started developing Swift in July 2010, so has exactly ten years of experience with Swift).
https://blog.risingstack.com/the-history-of-kubernetes/
I am sure that's not what they meant though!
- Senior: 10+ years
- Principal: 5 years
- Junior: 2 years
and fill their job postings like that
Seems like it's a template filling system with that logic
So that’s the joke of course but to make this even more sweeter I’d point out that even Go wasn’t publicly available. Wikipedia mentioned that first remarks about Go where from 2009 :)
I'd like to add that I find it scary that this basic info can't be found, neither by a cursory web search, nor on wikipedia. Makes you worry about a future generation raised in naive march-of-progress narratives wondering about how things came to be during the "dark ages" (= today) of the web
Kris isn’t wrong, but the details are far more nuanced than that. This talk is a non-primary source :)
In this case: iPhone development or even MacOs development.
(Of course it's hard for recruiters to see this, that's why I usually just say I have it, but yeah, ridiculous requirements gets ridiculous answers)
Edit: spelling.
And no, the ad wasn't written by a recruiter.
It seems to me a real licensing process with GRE style in person exams is needed to solve this problem.
Maybe we could even include sections on standards in the licensing process so I don’t have to spend my days fixing needlessly “creative” code.
It also doesn't prove anything about the individual's abilities today, only about what they were able to do at the time of passing the exam. How do you know that they didn't become sloppy and aren't spending their days high producing BS?
A successful exam has pretty much zero correlation with the (non)appearance of "creative code". E.g. if you expect a developer hired freshly out of school with no experience to write reasonable code, you are being completely unrealistic (and have already forgotten your own career start). But they did pass all their exams, right?
Yes, there are many incompetent fools in the field. But most of them likely hold degrees already and one extra exam wouldn't solve anything there. E.g. I know a civil engineer who has passed all the required exams, holds all the required diplomas and professional certificates, has 20+ years of experience - and one of his buildings has collapsed and two more had to be torn down because of fatal design mistakes in them.
This is why one hires for a trial period and asks for references and work portfolios at the interviews.
Let’s say an applicant had put in triple overtime for four years would that count as twelve years of experience?
Really?
How about, apply for jobs even if you don't have the skills they are asking for.
https://hbr.org/2014/08/why-women-dont-apply-for-jobs-unless...
On the hiring side, I’ve never actually paid attention to one and I thought they were kind of quaint.
As for tailoring your cv to the role, I have 15 years of work experience, and I limit my cv to one page so it stands out, interviews are required, and my age doesnt show easily. In the half or so page I have available for work experience examples, I have to show relevance. Its pointless me talking about that time I wrote embeded software if Im applying for a react/node gig.
What does your cv look like if you can just send the same thing everywhere?
My resume is two pages - nothing before 2008 on it.
I only started taking my career seriously in 2008. Since then, I’ve been very focused about which jobs I will target and which technologies I will work on. Both my resume and my job search focus on that. Anything mentioning my C bit twiddling days got removed by 2012. Of course I didn’t mention my stint writing FORTRAN on Stratus VOS mainframes.
2008 - I was an “expert beginner” and I did have to massage my resume to get a mid level C# enterprise Dev job. The next two jobs after that were focused on staying in the “full stack developer role”
2015 - My focus was getting a job where I could lead a project so I focused on the projects that I had led. My resume focused on that for the next two jobs.
2020 - I was focused on getting a job as a “digital transformation consultant”, “enterprise architect”, or a “cloud consultant”. My resume was very targeted toward that. I only applied for one job - Amazon/AWS. By the time I was looking post Covid, every other decently paying consulting job had disappeared. I didn’t have to tailor my resume to AWS - that’s where all of my experience was on that side.
Though I did get bounced later in a hiring process because my "total years of experience didn't qualify for the amount we require for this level of job".
From the hiring company's point of view, this is bad, not just because of the people who they miss out on who are still highly skilled, but because those who do interview might not be the most honest. If they are willing to claim they have experience that they can't, then how will they be as an employee? Will they give trustworthy status information, or honest estimates? Will their interactions be customers be forthright? How will their social interactions with their coworkers go?
If a hirer won't take the time to be quite sure they have accurate and realistic requirements in their requisitions, they may end up with quite a problem on their hands down the road.
Based on my experience, the second most stupid people work in HR. Most stupid people? Real Estate.
I am not saying that people in HR or RE are stupid by definition, I am sure some very smart people work in these fields. But it is a question of entrance barrier. You can get into HR from nearly any background. Yet, some kind of degree is required in most cases. In RE you do a few weeks training and you are ready to go.
Other fields have tremendous entrance barriers. Lets say a professor in a STEM field. You can find average people there but stupidity is rare.