4 ms·
> A candidate should have the experience to do the job well. I feel like this is the least true statement in the article. A candidate should have the willingne
by neogodless 10y ago
> A candidate should have the experience to do the job well.
I feel like this is the least true statement in the article. A candidate should have the willingness and ability to learn the skills required to perform the job duties, and improve those skills over time. They should have some basic building block skills required in advance, like understanding how code languages work, and how to learn them, or how to communicate with teammates and get difficult questions answered. But experience is probably not what they need, unless only experience can build a specific skill (i.e. product/market vision based on intimate domain knowledge.)
- gjkood 10y agoI agree. Everyone who now has the experience to do the job well was once a novice who had the willingness to learn and put in the necessary effort to do any job well.
- Jedd 10y agoI tend to agree. The article resonated with my experiences for the most part, but some lines felt out of place, such as: > Taking one of them would have set me back in my career since I would not have the skills I would have needed to do the job well. There's a massive disparity in most jobs between experience demanded for, and (potential) experience on offer to be gained from, the particular role. When I've sat on the recruiter side of the desk I've always been a bit wary about people who have a superset of the skills required for a job -- they're going to be very bored, very quickly. When I've sat on the other side of the desk I've had trouble verbalising, to the panel, the benefits of considering a candidate who has 70-90% of the skills or experience they're looking for.