Interviews
Every so often, my colleagues and I are asked to interview a candidate for a project. We read the resume (or CV as it is referred to in some places) and schedule a time when one of can talk to the candidate; A first time interview is invariably done by phone; only short-listed candidates get to a face-to-face meeting.
Our initial impression of the candidate is formed by the few pages that supposedly summarize his or her skills and experience. When reading these ndash; particularly when the candidate's native language may not be English – we try to give a little slack. Nonetheless, overall sloppiness and inaccuracy generally is an accurate indicator of the candidate's abilities (or should I say lack of abilities).
Those resumes that come via placement agencies need special handling. There are some agencies – I won't mention any names – make a point of bolding every "keyword". The resumes they forward are truely unbelievable, the cadidate having years of experience in every conceivable area. Not only do they have experience in every technlogy you've ever heard of, but often extending back before even the stated technology came out. Unbelievable. And, of course, that's just the point. I don't believe a word of it. Usually the candidate fails to answer basic questions about topics that they claim long experience with.
Another tendency I have noticed, possibly related to the pojnt on the previous paragraph. During the interview, candidates, answer questions by "reciting" a set piece (regardless of whether it is relevant to the question). This is a by product of a general trend to grade people on being able to regurgitate "facts", not on understanding.
Good candidates can not only explain what they know and what they have done, but also which areas they are weak in; an honest admission of topics they don't know is a good sign. For whatever reason, many candidates feel (or have been told) that they must claim expertise in everything under the sun. Overall I get the feeling that our industry is in a sad state of self-deception.
Category: Software
Our initial impression of the candidate is formed by the few pages that supposedly summarize his or her skills and experience. When reading these ndash; particularly when the candidate's native language may not be English – we try to give a little slack. Nonetheless, overall sloppiness and inaccuracy generally is an accurate indicator of the candidate's abilities (or should I say lack of abilities).
Those resumes that come via placement agencies need special handling. There are some agencies – I won't mention any names – make a point of bolding every "keyword". The resumes they forward are truely unbelievable, the cadidate having years of experience in every conceivable area. Not only do they have experience in every technlogy you've ever heard of, but often extending back before even the stated technology came out. Unbelievable. And, of course, that's just the point. I don't believe a word of it. Usually the candidate fails to answer basic questions about topics that they claim long experience with.
Another tendency I have noticed, possibly related to the pojnt on the previous paragraph. During the interview, candidates, answer questions by "reciting" a set piece (regardless of whether it is relevant to the question). This is a by product of a general trend to grade people on being able to regurgitate "facts", not on understanding.
Good candidates can not only explain what they know and what they have done, but also which areas they are weak in; an honest admission of topics they don't know is a good sign. For whatever reason, many candidates feel (or have been told) that they must claim expertise in everything under the sun. Overall I get the feeling that our industry is in a sad state of self-deception.
Category: Software
posted by John at 5:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home