| Topic Name: |
Job Searches |
| Message Name: |
Get a clue |
| Date Posted: |
02/05/2002 |
| In Reply To: |
Let's just look at the hi-tech job market. My employer had an opening for a junior computer technician. We put out some ads and got over 200 resumes back. Even though the job description specified exactly what we were looking for, we got an endless number of resumes from people who have double digits of experience and/or demand a six digit salary. Sure, we would love to hire someone like those. If they accept the $50k a year (better than unemployment benefits, right?) even better. What's next then? They will keep looking for more excitment and definitely more money. In short, they will not last long. Wouldn't you call that overqualified? If someone gives an impression that he/she will jump ship at the next best opportunity because he/she has the potential to do more than the position can offer? The employer usually knows best what skill level would fit best. If you are too good (i.e. you would be worth more than the salary range assigned to that position) you are not going to get the job. Period.
Being underqualified is just a result of how your resume looks like and how you presented yourself in the interview. If your personality is right and you give the impression that you are the right man/woman, you will get the job. If you cannot do that, it's back to the mirror and practice.
I had the pleasure to go through all those 200 resumes. Only 10 or so stuck (resume indicated that the skill level matched the requirements) and were considered for interviews. Out of those only a couple were invited back for seconds (the ones who could prove themselves). One person in the end got the job (the one who was liked most by everybody - mostly on a personality basis). I am very happy with him and he's been doing a great job so far. It is all about personality and presentation. Despite the tremendous number of unemployed IT workers in the market it is still extremely hard to find good people. |
| Message: |
I do what you probably do when I receive too many resumes: create 3 piles: ounder, over, and just right. If I have a choice between someone with 10 years vs someone with 5yrs, I choose the more experienced. It's simple price/ performance.
I don't know where you live, but it's obviously not CA. Even here, I can get an entry level tech out of college for 25k, a junior level for 35k, and a senior tech for 50-60k. I do -not- need a genius to do this kind of work i.e not even a BSCS.
When you're over 40 (which I am), chances are you might have a mortgage and kids, and God forbid a Life! It's no secret that the ex-CEO of Yahoo is quoted in saying he would never hire anyone over 30. I live next to eBay and I can tell you that the avg age is under 35. These people are cheap because they don't have a life i.e responsiblities. And if they do, it's just the BMW and their girl-friends!
And btw, it's also no secret that the education system sucks these days. The federal govt has said "a BS in 2000 is equivelent to a HS education in 1975". Combine this with Harvard's research that we have just created the least productive generation
-ever-. (You have to factor out the technology)
In Silicon Valley, 100k/yr is barely making it due to the high cost of living. If you think CEO's at Enron are the only immoral, unethical, lying cheating, conartists, must I remind of the dot-com bubble bust?
And who doesn't work for money? Is it a sin to try to get ahead? Granted, most (~75%) of the population is under-employed, but how many people -like- it?
|
|
