Does it seem like companies today expect the perfect candidate to be handed to them on a silver platter? (interview, application)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've had an employer call me for the position I applied to and just because I was missing one requirement she never called back again to schedule an interview.
Seriously?
I've had this happen to me many times. They are checking off boxes on a form. They treat your experience like bits, it's either a 1 or 0, fuzzy logic need not apply.
I do feel that people going for unskilled jobs such as fast food, are being expected to bring experience to the table..
There is something wrong with that in my opinion... pretty bad when people are put through the ringer for burger jobs..
I've had this happen to me many times. They are checking off boxes on a form. They treat your experience like bits, it's either a 1 or 0, fuzzy logic need not apply.
A lot of recruiters are not technical and they don't understand anything about the skills they are asking for.
One of the most common questions I'm asked is: How good is your SQL?
My answer: Very strong.
Their next question: How good is your T-SQL?
*facepalm*
If I'm feeling up to it, I then educate them thusly:
SQL, or Structured Query Language, is an ANSI and ISO-standard language for manipulating data. T-SQL, or Transact-SQL, is Microsoft's extension of the SQL language. PL/SQL is Oracle's extension of the SQL language. They have the same basis, but are slightly different...like different dialects of the same language. So, in a job requirement based on SQL Server, "SQL" and "T-SQL" are interchangeable terms. Most Microsoft SQL Server developers refer to T-SQL as "SQL" unless they work on multiple database platforms in the same position and have to distinguish between different dialects of SQL in conversation and on their resumes.
Most recruiters then respond with "Oh wow, I didn't know that. Thank you!"
A lot of recruiters are not technical and they don't understand anything about the skills they are asking for.
One of the most common questions I'm asked is: How good is your SQL?
My answer: Very strong.
Their next question: How good is your T-SQL?
*facepalm*
If I'm feeling up to it, I then educate them thusly:
SQL, or Structured Query Language, is an ANSI and ISO-standard language for manipulating data. T-SQL, or Transact-SQL, is Microsoft's extension of the SQL language. PL/SQL is Oracle's extension of the SQL language. They have the same basis, but are slightly different...like different dialects of the same language. So, in a job requirement based on SQL Server, "SQL" and "T-SQL" are interchangeable terms. Most Microsoft SQL Server developers refer to T-SQL as "SQL" unless they work on multiple database platforms in the same position and have to distinguish between different dialects of SQL in conversation and on their resumes.
Most recruiters then respond with "Oh wow, I didn't know that. Thank you!"
Great post. I saw a posting from one recruiter that asked for experience with "SQL joints." I've never smoked any SQL joints, but I do have plenty of experience with left, inner, right, and full outer SQL joins lol.
Great post. I saw a posting from one recruiter that asked for experience with "SQL joints." I've never smoked any SQL joints, but I do have plenty of experience with left, inner, right, and full outer SQL joins lol.
One recruiter asked me if I'd ever done left joins. Uh...yeah. Then he said, "How about left outer joins?"
Another time one asked me if I'd written UDFs. Uh...yeah. Then he said, "How about user-defined functions?"
I do feel that people going for unskilled jobs such as fast food, are being expected to bring experience to the table.. There is something wrong with that in my opinion... pretty bad when people are put through the ringer for burger jobs..
It amazes me how companies will spend months looking for the perfect candidate to fill a position. All those resources spent and of course it's the fault of the job seekers for not being perfectly qualified. I see some interview experiences on Glassdoor where the employee says it took 4 months before getting a job offer. Most reasonably smart people who want a good job would be ok with 4 months of unpaid training to make up for any deficiencies they have in meeting the exact job requirements.
I think in my case, there are internal candidates who are not qualified I could take and spend a boat load of tme training, there are direct applciatons I could take a chance on and train them or hope they work out.
Then their are the headhunter applicants I need to pay a big fee for, those I put through ringer as I am paying top dolllar, some job hunter only use headhunters so they often get rough interviews.
It amazes me how companies will spend months looking for the perfect candidate to fill a position. All those resources spent and of course it's the fault of the job seekers for not being perfectly qualified. I see some interview experiences on Glassdoor where the employee says it took 4 months before getting a job offer. Most reasonably smart people who want a good job would be ok with 4 months of unpaid training to make up for any deficiencies they have in meeting the exact job requirements.
Simply put, it takes time and money to train someone. If the wrong candidate is hired and doesn't work out, they have to start all over again with someone new.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.