I'm still stumbling my way through a psychology degree (hah weak attempt at
an appeal to authority lol) but I'm more and more convinced that "technical
interviews" are a form of projection less about means testing a persons'
potential / abilities. Some folks just have extremely poor working memory
while others have excellent ones but on the whole the ability for them to
regurgitate the exact location of where logic lies within the .NET
framework is really moot. Hell, I think i could probably put the .NET
program managers themselves into the same process and i'd wonder if they
would come out unscathed and more over what purpose does it really serve?

If someone can memorise the entirety of ASP.NET MVC but fails to apply the
same logic in say Mono Subset then do they really know .NET or do they just
know a subset of .NET. What if they could provide coverage on everything
.NET up and until LINQ or Entity Framework? is that still .NET pass or
fail? In that they've effectively illustrated they can grasp or comprehend
the primitives required to progress with .NET but in the end have poor
recall abilities?

In my interview process what I typically look for the most is appetite for
puzzles. You're an engineer, you're not meant to walk in with answers
you're supposed to walk in with enough foundation pieces to find answers,
trick with interviews is to then test the foundation... its why stupid
questions like "Why are manhole covers round" are legendary... its an open
question that has only one true answer (because Ninja Turtles need to get
in / out of them) but lends itself to creative / critical thinking.

Technical are fine but if they are more targeted at foundation level points
...ie "inside pseudo code, write the usage of a pointer being passed in out
of two separate layers and then same thing but a copy instead" - who cares
if the person writes this in python, you now have an indicator marked out
on their ability to understand how memory works which in turn is really
what you want to know at the end of the day.

When people lie in their CV"s they are an "expert" don't be quick to
punish, as what you're likely seeing unfolding is someone who's got the
confidence and ambition to fight for that title - so in a way, use that,
feed that behaviour and you'll likely come away with a seasoned warrior. If
after 1 - 3 months they are an empty vessel, well you still can say "Sorry,
the tribe has spoken, thanks for coming". Only a fool would assume that a
new hire is productive in the 1-3 month timelines anyway, as thats just not
how it actually unfolds (regardless of skill level).

my 25c.


---
Regards,
Scott Barnes
http://www.riagenic.com

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Bec C <bec.usern...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That's what recruitment agencies typically ask for on a CV. I know how
> hard it can be when recruiters look for an "angular expert" but the only
> angular experience you have is some online videos. Hard to compete. Many
> devs lie on the CV actually to get the job, sometimes it works.
>
>
> On Tuesday, 7 June 2016, Tony Wright <tonyw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would find it a dubious stat, and certainly wouldn't rely on it.
>>
>> It only indicates your perception of where you are and may have no basis
>> in reality.
>>
>> Best leave it out and wait for those employers that think it means
>> something to request it from you.
>>
>> Better employers will be able to gauge where you are from your history
>> and clever questioning.
>>
>> T.
>> On 7 Jun 2016 3:49 PM, "Tom P" <tompbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What do the seniors here look for on a CV? I've been told by a few
>>> people I should be giving myself a score out of 10 for competency in a
>>> particular language/technology but I find it quite hard to do that and have
>>> it actually mean anything.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> On 7 June 2016 at 10:22, Greg Keogh <gfke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I had a tough time down there too. Everywhere seemed to want an
>>>>> AngularJS "expert" when I was looking.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh hell! I'll never work again -- *GK*
>>>>
>>>
>>>

Reply via email to