How to get a job (or not)

[Birdjaguar]

Since the assessment is based on subject-dependent evaluations, I'm not sure if their conclusion automatically follows. Tough interviews could be caused by a number of things: high competition, interviewers out of touch with workers in their field, etc. The advice to "make interviews harder" is a suffocating overgeneralization that doesn't say much.

We don't really know what "harder" means, but their data may be the best we have about what motivates applicants to accept offers. When I hired, I always tried to make interviews challenging and interesting.

 

[Truthy]

Another factor is just that if an applicant finds an interview too easy, they could be over-qualified or able to get a better option elsewhere. Say some company has an interview designed to recruit at the 50th percentile in ability/competence for a position at their company and I'd be 90th percentile at that company. Then that interview might be easy for me and I'd likely prefer some company where I'm lower than 90th percentile (higher pay, more skilled coworkers, and so on).

 

[Birdjaguar]

A lot of it has to do with the nature of the recruiting companies. larger firms are more consistent and have more resources. Smaller firms are likely to be more "shoot from the hip" at interviewing. I think the best way to approach an interview is to use it to evaluate whether or not you want to work there. It is your best chance to ask them hard questions and make the interview a challenge for them. Of course, such an approach is counter weighted by one's need for a job versus just looking for a better opportunity.

 

[Zardnaar]

time zones are meaningless to gamers

Lag in NZ is very bad though when playing with foreigners.

Getting close to 1 gig speeds internally though.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Lag in NZ is very bad though when playing with foreigners.

Getting close to 1 gig speeds internally though.

Maybe the wrong thread.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I found this today and thought some of you might find it interesting.

INTELLIGENT INVESTOR

| By Jason Zweig

Before Investing, Consider Your Job And if You Are Like a Stock or a Bond

Investing, once a necessity, has become a luxury. “In the 1930s we had the Great Depression, in 2008 we had the start of the Great Recession and now we are facing the Great Cessation,” says John Cammack, a private investor and former executive at T. Rowe Price Group Inc. in Baltimore. The global economic lockdown to combat the spread of coronavirus, he says, is “stopping the many small actions that make up Adam Smith’s marketplace dead in their tracks.”

Yet Twitter and the internet are full of urgings to invest now, on the belief that the economy will eventually recover and stocks will bounce back, as they always have in the long run. And the long-term future returns on stocks are becoming more attractive: Since the beginning of February through Tuesday’s close, stocks have become 26% cheaper, as measured by their market price divided by average earnings over the past 10 years, both adjusted for inflation, according to data collected by Yale University finance professor Robert Shiller. That’s one of the steepest declines in so short a period since the start of such data in 1881.

That’s good news for those with the cash and courage to begin buying into the decline. One of the most basic rules of investing is that as current prices fall, future returns rise—all else being equal. But all else isn’t equal right now. In this Great Cessation, entire industries are shutting down before our eyes, and millions of people could be thrown out of work. If your paychecks might disappear, you shouldn’t be spending money to buy stocks when you might soon need it for necessities.

The first question all investors should be asking themselves now is: Am I more like a stock or a bond? Every investor’s total portfolio consists of two big buckets. The one we always talk about is your financial capital: the stocks, bonds, mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, real estate, cash and other marketable assets you hold. The one we seldom talk about is your human capital: the value of the current and future earnings from your career. A fortunate few people have safe human capital that offers a lifelong steady stream of payments. A justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, with lifetime job security, is a walking, talking, gavel-wielding bond—with zero risk of default.

Other people’s human capital is also bond-like, although not riskless: You’re unlikely to be fired or laid off if you’re a federal civil servant, a tenured professor at an amply funded university, a police officer, a physician or an emergency medical professional, a member of the military or the clergy. And, just like bonds, the human capital in such fields generates stable income but seldom a lot of growth. The potential for enormous boosts to your salary is relatively limited. Other people’s human capital makes them much more like a stock. And the past month should have reminded everyone alive that stocks are not low risk. They offer the potential for high returns over the course of decades, but that comes at the cost of bone-shattering drops along the way. For many of us, careers are like that too: rewarding over a lifetime, but with harrowing detours and disruptions at unpredictable intervals.

That risk can be latent, too, lurking below a seemingly safe exterior. Just ask anyone in the energy industry today, or in housing 10 years ago, or in Silicon Valley 20 years ago. People who work in riskier industries often—but far from always—have the potential to earn a lot more when they themselves take more risk. The return on their human capital, like the return on stocks, can vary wildly: An oil wildcatter drilling in untapped basins could sink dry holes or strike it rich, or a health-care executive could fail from company to company until finally founding a successful firm of her own. Especially if you’re young, you can protect and even turbocharge the value of your human capital by acquiring new languages or other skills, technical training, graduate degrees or other professional credentials. That’s even more important if, like so many people in industries like hotels or restaurants, your career has just been sucked into a black hole.

Online and other remote training programs should continue to make that possible even in a global economic lockdown. For many people, that’s the first place any spare cash should go at a time like this. For now, adding more money to stocks—unless you’re more like a bond yourself—might have to wait. To be able to bolster your financial capital in the long run, you first have to rebuild your human capital in the short run.

my bolding

 

[Goodfella]

It's probably only a little time spent on their end while your contribution is totally free to them at that stage. It's disgusting to me how often I get strung along and my time wasted by companies. They say the job market is great but that isn't reflected in the interactions that companies have with candidates for sure. They may feel pressure to pay higher wages but certainly none to show common courtesy.

I'm not disputing that there are companies that do this, but I interview people from time to time and it can be a huge waste of time. It takes about 10-20 minutes to review the candidate's resume and think of questions to ask them. Then you have to spend 30 minutes to an hour doing the interview. It can be a huge drag.

 

[Truthy]

What do you guys think is an appropriate amount of time and effort for a company to expect for a take-home problem?

Edit: what I mean is a problem that a company gives candidates as part of their interview process.

 

[Gorbles]

What do you guys think is an appropriate amount of time and effort for a company to expect for a take-home problem?

Couple of hours? I'd be cautious of anything longer than that because it risk running close to free work for the business.

 

[Birdjaguar]

What do you guys think is an appropriate amount of time and effort for a company to expect for a take-home problem?

If you are already an employee, then if you are paid hourly: as long as necessary to fix it. If you are salaried and being paid: as long as it takes to fix it. If you are not an employee, why are you fixing it?

 

[Truthy]

If you are already an employee, then if you are paid hourly: as long as necessary to fix it. If you are salaried and being paid: as long as it takes to fix it. If you are not an employee, why are you fixing it?

Sorry, what I mean is a problem for candidates to work on, on their own time, as part of a company's interview process. So like a technical interview where you aren't being supervised by an interviewer as you work on the problem. For example:

I've had lots of challenging interviews - one recent one gave me 2 days to write a notional rocket engine development program and also solve a bunch of engine-related problems

Or a recent experience that prompted me to ask - a take-home problem where I had to create a question-answering system (basically, a program that, when given a Wikipedia article and a question, finds a paragraph in the article that answers the question).

Couple of hours? I'd be cautious of anything longer than that because it risk running close to free work for the business.

To clarify, I mean a problem for an interview process, not take-home work given to a current employee.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think that you need to spend enough time to provide a well explained answer that shows both technical skills and broader thinking skills related to how such problems are connected to the bigger picture.

And you can also just ask the interviewer what the typical time needed to solve the problem has been. Even if they evade a definitive answer, you've lost nothing.

 

[Truthy]

I think that you need to spend enough time to provide a well explained answer that shows both technical skills and broader thinking skills related to how such problems are connected to the bigger picture.

And you can also just ask the interviewer what the typical time needed to solve the problem has been. Even if they evade a definitive answer, you've lost nothing.

I've actually already done the problem and turned it in, and they gave me an offer. It took me about 2 whole weekends, plus some more time scattered here and there. I'd guess that the amount of time I spent on it was typical. However, even though there was no hard deadline, it did feel excessively time-consuming to me. I'd guess that's an honest mistake on their part, as they haven't given the problem out very many times--to my understanding.

 

[Birdjaguar]

That time is worth a good offer, good going.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

and they gave me an offer.

Congrats!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Oh and to answer the question, 2 weekends is too long. I'd say 2-3 days to complete it, with the expectation that it will take no more than 8 hours of effort. It should not take more than a working day of effort to assess someone as part of an interview.

 

[Gorbles]

What hobbs said. Heck, I stand by my earlier estimate if it's a theoretical problem.

When I said much longer risks you doing actual work for the company (you're not working for), I meant it - I've heard of exploitation of interviewees (?) in this regard.

That said, very glad it worked out for you and I hope the offer's good!

 

[caketastydelish]

Between jobs. I was living in the DFW area but am (temporarily) back with my parents (small town in the middle of nowhere) because of the coronavirus making employment opportunities pretty hard for the time being so I might as well stay home and not have to pay rent.

That said, I'm attending a virtual, online job fair on the 21st of this month, two days from me posting this. The job fair will last a solid majority of the day, and I plan on being there the whole time.

With nothing better to do, I'm studying vigorously to give me more employable skills. A comfortable majority of my waking hours these days (at least 80% of the time from the time I wake up to the time I go to bed) is spent studying. Mostly between studying for the first half of the A+ certification, and some coding. (visual basic and SQL).

I get to the point so many times a day where I feel like my brain can barely process any new information but I keep pressing on because I have nothing better to do and would feel guilty to just be a bum.

Advice from @rah or anyone else in this field would be highly appreciated.

 

[Synobun]

If you're finding it difficult to absorb new information, you can use a program like Anki to help retain what you've already learned.

 

[Ironsided]

Are you people still this idiotic?

Moderator Action: That will be enough flaming/trolling for now, thank you. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889