[ajug-members] The Development Skill Laundry List

Sun Sep 2 12:35:56 EDT 2007

Does some of this not also hint at the problems of the hiring companies?
>From hiring parties not understanding the code base they are hiring for, to
the desire for a technology to "engineer into" an existing and badly written
code base, it seems a lot of hires are destined for failure before the offer
is even sent out.

Worse, it has gotten a fair number of people in the job pool to realize that
even though something is written on the job posting, there is a very good
chance it is not really necessary.  Either it was added by someone that had
no clue, or it was placed there as a "we would have liked to have used
this."  And this is what leads us to people just populating their resumes
with loads of things to look at.

Finally after all of that, it seems we just do not like following up on
referrals.  Countless times I've had my coworkers question whether or not
someone was really knowledgeable after an interview.  If the person is not
there anymore, you can either bring them back in, or look up referrals.  No
amount of studying their resume will really be able to help, for all of the
reasons that have been listed in this thread.

And yes, I realize this sounds like I'm defending recruiters.  I'm more just
asking if there is another way this problem could be addressed.

So, what technologies belong on a laundry list?  More than that, why?
Clearly, Java (or whatever base language) is a necessity.  Following that,
though, what about some others?

-josh

On 9/2/07, Laurie Tynor <lbt at iintiip.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I think the main problem with the IT buzzword-hiring problem is the
> fact that most employers use 3rd party recruiters to find technical
> candidates.
>
> The only thing recruiters can screen on is buzzword compliance and
> personality - they have no way of judging whether the candidate
> actually can develop/design well, they can't judge whether someone has
> actually used or understood the buzzwords on the resume, and they
> can't tell whether someone can figure things out.  The multiple-choice
> tests that are often given test, overall, small details of (often
> old/out of date) technologies.  They are no substitute for a
> knowledgeable person doing a real resume/phone screen.
>
> The recruiter ads are also written to hide any identifying information
> about the company -- this leaves room for almost nothing other than
> the acronyms in the posting.  Most recruiter job postings sound
> essentially the same.  It makes developers view IT jobs as
> commodities, in just the same way that employers are now viewing
> developers as commodities.  Both see the other as a package of
> acronym-exposures.
>
> For an industry that is supposed to be built on creativity, logical
> thinking, and the ability to learn things... it is a bad situation all
> around.
>
>
> Laurie Tynor
>
>
> -------------------------
>
>
> > This is an interesting problem I've faced recently as we did a wave of
> > hiring.  I think this really touches also on experience levels.  I've
> also
> > been frustrated that any developer who's been in the Java industry for 5
> > years gets tagged senior.  Really?  Can this 5 year veteran solve large,
> > complex problems?  Can s/he do it in a maintainable way?  Within a time
> > frame?  What if the while project doesn't fit?  What do you
> sacrifice?  What
> > are the principals you use to write code?  What is a developer's idea of
> a
> > "completed" unit of work?
> > It is very difficult to interview for these things, even if you know
> thats
> > what you are looking for.  And I agree, recruiters dont help this
> problem.
> > I think there is room for all levels within any development shop, as you
> > would depend on your more senior and experienced folks to break problems
> > down into smaller units for the junior levels.  Then again, I also think
> > theres a difference between a developer and an engineer, works that seem
> to
> > be used interchangeably in this industry.
> >
> > On 8/19/07, Paul McKibben <pmckibben at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This topic hits close to home for me (I'm talking about skills lists,
> not
> > > high school), having experienced the frustrations of it both as a team
> lead
> > > interviewing candidates, and as a former candidate interviewing for
> > > positions.
> > >
> > > Just a few days ago, I interviewed a candidate with a long list of
> > > "qualifications".  His resume looked like alphabet soup.  When I see a
> > > resume like that, my first reaction is to toss it aside--a resume like
> that
> > > only emphasizes technologies, and not the ability to think, learn, and
> solve
> > > problems.  However, my boss already scheduled an interview before I
> ever saw
> > > his resume.  When this candidate did come in, all of us who
> interviewed him
> > > came to the same conclusion: he knew how to regurgitate the technical
> skills
> > > he learned, but he did not know how to apply those skills to solve
> problems.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm really frustrated with the ability to find good candidates.  For
> the
> > > most part, recruiters have not helped.  It's not their fault--all they
> have
> > > to go on is buzzwords.  But if you believe writers like Joel Spolsky (
> > > http://joelonsoftware.com) and Nick Corcodilos (
> > > http://asktheheadhunter.com), the best candidates don't often come in
> > > through recruiters--they come in through referrals by people who know
> them.
> > > I can say that of all the people on my team, now and in the past, the
> best
> > > ones did NOT come in through recruiters.  They came in through
> referrals.
> > > Conversely, of all the ones that came in through recruiters (most of
> them
> > > have come and gone), there is only one that I would like to hire back.
> > > That's 1 out of 5, in a 3-year timeframe.  20% is not very good,
> especially
> > > compared to the near perfect results we get through referrals.
> > >
> > > So as a team lead, what do I look for?  The most important
> qualifications
> > > are good judgment, and the ability to think, learn, and solve
> problems.
> > > However, we do have some basic technical requirements as well.  Since
> we
> > > (Wave7 Optics) are telecom equipment vendor, and our team develops
> > > management software for the equipment we sell, we prefer candidates
> who have
> > > some experience with element management or network management
> software, or
> > > at least have some understanding of IP networking.  Since we write our
> > > software in Java, we expect candidates to know the Java programming
> > > language.  Anything above and beyond that is a bonus.  The more
> experienced
> > > you are with technologies that we use (or could use) in our management
> > > software, it certainly helps.  But if all you know is technologies,
> and you
> > > aren't able to look at a particular scenario, understand it, and
> decide the
> > > best technologies to use for that scenario, you're more harm to us
> than
> > > good.  It's easier to learn technologies than good judgment.  We want
> > > candidates with good judgment and the ability to learn fast.
> > >
> > > By the way, if it's not obvious already, we're looking for a Software
> > > Engineer at Wave7.  If you're interested (especially after reading
> this),
> > > please e-mail me at my work address: paul.mckibben(at)w7optics.com.  I
> > > advise you not to just send a resume, but also explain why you think
> you'd
> > > be a good fit.  I also welcome questions if you just want to find out
> more
> > > about the position.  I posted something to ajug-jobs last week, so
> feel free
> > > to take a look at that.  You can find more about the company at
> > > http://www.wave7optics.com.  Note that this position is not yet listed
> on
> > > our web site.
> > >
> > > Recruiters: sorry, but please don't e-mail me regarding this
> position.  I
> > > do not have the authority to accept business from recruiters.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >   Paul
> > >
> > > On 8/19/07, Keith Welch <kwelch at mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > All you have proven is that you were a virgin in high school.
> > > >
> > > > That was just a rumor!
> > > >
> > > > (Sorry for quoting the entire message without my comment earlier)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > ajug-members mailing list
> > > > ajug-members at ajug.org
> > > > http://www.ajug.org/mailman/listinfo/ajug-members
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ajug-members mailing list
> > > ajug-members at ajug.org
> > > http://www.ajug.org/mailman/listinfo/ajug-members
> > >
> > >
> _______________________________________________
> ajug-members mailing list
> ajug-members at ajug.org
> http://www.ajug.org/mailman/listinfo/ajug-members
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ajug.org/pipermail/ajug-members/attachments/20070902/b97ac403/attachment.html 