On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
> Really?  It's not cost effective to trust a *real* interview where actual
> knowledge is probed?  I disagree.  It is cost effective to hire someone
> that has the right skills for the right job.
>
It is not cost effective to keep on salary a HR person, then not use them
to do thier job. It is not cost effective to have the IT manager WASTE his
time weeding out the people who have no business sending in thier resume's
when 1) That is what HR is supposed to be doing. 2) He's probably got
enough things to do past thier deadlines.
 
 
> > or where the employer has is techno-savvy enough to understand the
> > applicant's abilities.
> 
> This is where I'd rather be any day!  Do you want you're boss to not
> understand
> what's going on? (then again, maybe you do)
>
Basically taken out of context, not worth a rebuttal.
 
> > They weren't meant to replace established hiring and job-seeking practices,
> > they were designed to standardize things a bit.
> 
> You just said earlier that it's not "cost-effective" to do "established
> hiring" practices.
> 
Again, quoted out of context, but I will rebutt this one. Established
hiring practices are where the HR person screens the many candidates,
passing the ones that meet the IT manager's stated preferences on to be
interviewed by the hiring manager. Re-reading my original email, I fail
to see where I stated the above.


> I truly encourage everyone out there on the list to use the certifications
> with a grain of salt.

Ignore them completely? Then by what standards, without
spending large amounts of time with each and every candidate for each and
every open position do we use?

These certifications are still in the beginning stages of development.
Perhaps one day in the future all certifications will be as well rounded
as the CCIE, but even though they are not is no real reason to disregard
them altogether. 

Unless of course, you can't manage to pass one.

-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]

Reply via email to