[ale] Linux Administrator opportunity

[Tim Meanor]

I look at it as good practice.  In other words, you go on a couple
interviews for jobs you don't know much about or aren't too excited
about, and you get practice doing things like succinctly describing
your previous job/experience/skills/etc and you also get an idea of
what sorts of questions you'll be asked, what you need to do to
prepare for an interview, etc, etc.  Then, once you get an interview
for a job that you are interested in, you'll be better prepared than
if it's your first interview.  Plus, you never know, one of those jobs
that don't sound too interesting may turn out to be better than
expected once you go onsite and see things for yourself.  I know when
I was on the job market for the first time in 8 years, my first
interview wasn't great, but I went on a couple more and by the time I
got to an interview at a company I was interested in, I felt well
prepared and did well.  YMMV, of course, but that's my $0.02 USD.

-Tim

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 1:16 PM, James Sumners <james.sumners at gmail.com> wrote:
> I understand all of the views expressed previous to this one. But this
> is one is in line with my position. If I can't research the company
> beforehand, why would I apply to work there?
>
> 2008/9/9 Michael B. Trausch <mike at trausch.us>:
>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 12:06:20PM -0400, Stephen Benjamin wrote:
>>> Indeed, I find the same issues job hunting.  Staffing agencies can be
>>> frustrating but you just got to play the game. Unfortunately, many don't
>>> have the experience or knowledge to identify good hires: they'll see someone
>>> with a B.S. and Linux+ cert and prefer them over someone who's been working
>>> with linux for many many years without a degree (e.g. me!).
>>>
>>> But you put your feelers out there for the jobs that you're best qualified
>>> for, and hope some bite.
>>
>> This is precisely why I don't take the bait that headhunters lay out.
>> Often, they'll claim that they are qualified to make a decision, but
>> will get totally confused when they give you these stupid
>> questionnaires.  On more than one occasion, I've been selected as a
>> potential person for the job, and then they ask these dumb questions, I
>> provide answers, and they're like "Well, that's not what's here..."
>> because the answers they have on their little keys are one sentence or
>> less, when the correct answer is more than that.
>>
>> If they _were_ able to figure it out on their own, and could hold up a
>> technical conversation on the topic of the job, then I'd be much more
>> inclined to give them a second thought.
>>
>> To be fair, the blame does not rest *fully* on staffing agencies:
>> Companies are vague in giving job descriptions to the agencies to
>> fulfill.  So, they can't answer your questions, and they won't give you
>> a contact to a person that *can* answer your questions (and often won't
>> even give you the name of the place until you agree to interview, which
>> is a no-no for me; I won't even think about working for a place that I
>> am not allowed to know about, because that is information that is
>> pertinent to my decision!), and they usually won't go out of their way
>> to find out for you---they'll just move on to the next person that is
>> more willing to work with far less information.
>>
>>   --- Mike
>
>
>
> --
> James Sumners
> http://james.roomfullofmirrors.com/
>
> "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts
> pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it
> is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become
> drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted."
>
> Missionaria Protectiva, Text QIV (decto)
> CH:D 59
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>