On 10/26/2011 10:26 AM, Henry Paul wrote: > I don't see how specifying students or interns would serve to > limit it any further than that. Actually, that's my point in a nutshell, you don't see it, and that doesn't necessarily mean what we think it means. You don't specify what isn't an actual job requirement based on what you don't see. The idea is that we do not know the circumstances people have in every regard, and making specifications with that in mind is not expanding your options, but can be limiting in ways we don't plan for. It is a form of self-injuring arrogance, and one any business would do well to avoid.
Even the example of a recruiter asking for a job for less pay isn't going to do well by limiting the number of people he asks. If he's not being rude about it, the worst they can do is say no and possibly rant somewhere about how insulting it was to be asked. If he doesn't ask, he may miss a candidate that would be great for the job but fits outside the box the company has made for the position arbitrarily. This might sound more like salesmanship than recruiting, but that's only because that is exactly what recruiting is. A hire is a two-way sell. You sell your company, or you sell yourself, and self-limiting should only be done on actual requirements. A student is not a requirement of the posting in question, for instance, but might be for an on-campus job. Only one should specify "student" in its posting. -Tod Hansmann /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
