5 ms·

For some people, yes. I once got some feedback that my CV is incomplete, mostly because I didn't mention some stuff I consider I don't know good enough to menti

by seqizz 7y ago

For some people, yes. I once got some feedback that my CV is incomplete, mostly because I didn't mention some stuff I consider I don't know good enough to mention. Turns out people with less experience on that topic were putting it on their CVs. So.. Better safe than sorry?

notacoward 7y ago
That's so close to classic Prisoner's Dilemma that it makes me sad. When the majority of others "defect" (lie, exaggerate, or embellish in this case) your individually-rational best choice is to defect as well. So you get the job, which is (usually) better than not getting the job. And you're surrounded by other defectors, which is worse than being surrounded by cooperators. From game theory, the "solution" is to favor cooperation anyway, but not absolutely. So you might miss out on some jobs, but the one you get will be better. Then again, there's a reason it's called game theory. ;)
agumonkey 7y ago
It's sad fact of human societies. It's a game of seduction, not about precision and truth (unless rare contexts). I'm like you. Unless I have near complete over a subject, I don't list it. I'm thus jobless. I believe it all depends on how ~structured the industry is. For small gigs for instance, you get direct view of the tasks and problems to fix. You can rapidly tell the customer if you know or not. In highly layered places, you get to talk to many HR that don't know what computing problem solving is, and will react negatively if you're not inside a box. I just passed some technical tests for a job. The questions were very basic. Compared to this, I should list it as senior skills. Actually that's the only reason I'm interviewing, to get a sense of what people want and how they grade it. ps: I also wonder how many people get angry at interviews due to that.
- mgkimsal 7y ago
  I'm routinely seeing postings for "Senior XYZ developer" and generally list "you must have at least 3 years of XYZ". I don't recall it being quite this bad 20 years ago, but... the market was different. There's a few "stricter" posts that I see that will list 5 or 7 or minimum 10 years of XYZ, but the most I see (when time experience is listed) is 'minimum 3'. Outside of something like nodejs, I'm not even sure 3 years will get you through the experience of a version upgrade with some tech stacks, let alone "senior" qualifications. But it will all come down to how you define "senior".
  - agumonkey 7y ago
    I also have a dilemma. Spending 3 years in a project using <tech> doesn't mean much to me. Unless it's a serious gig with regular problem solving .. but if it's mostly management hell, documentation, ... you might not know much more than when you came in. I know a lot of things I learned in python on my own wouldn't happen in a job because you don't have time to play with everything in the language.
Double_a_92 7y ago
Most of the time you actually know more than you would assume. Even if you barely touched something, if you know about it you at least know what it is, what it can be used for, were to start learning... That's already much more than what average people can quickly pick up.

by seqizz 7y ago

notacoward 7y ago

That's so close to classic Prisoner's Dilemma that it makes me sad. When the majority of others "defect" (lie, exaggerate, or embellish in this case) your individually-rational best choice is to defect as well. So you get the job, which is (usually) better than not getting the job. And you're surrounded by other defectors, which is worse than being surrounded by cooperators. From game theory, the "solution" is to favor cooperation anyway, but not absolutely. So you might miss out on some jobs, but the one you get will be better. Then again, there's a reason it's called game theory. ;)

agumonkey 7y ago

It's sad fact of human societies. It's a game of seduction, not about precision and truth (unless rare contexts). I'm like you. Unless I have near complete over a subject, I don't list it. I'm thus jobless. I believe it all depends on how ~structured the industry is. For small gigs for instance, you get direct view of the tasks and problems to fix. You can rapidly tell the customer if you know or not. In highly layered places, you get to talk to many HR that don't know what computing problem solving is, and will react negatively if you're not inside a box. I just passed some technical tests for a job. The questions were very basic. Compared to this, I should list it as senior skills. Actually that's the only reason I'm interviewing, to get a sense of what people want and how they grade it. ps: I also wonder how many people get angry at interviews due to that.

mgkimsal 7y ago
I'm routinely seeing postings for "Senior XYZ developer" and generally list "you must have at least 3 years of XYZ". I don't recall it being quite this bad 20 years ago, but... the market was different. There's a few "stricter" posts that I see that will list 5 or 7 or minimum 10 years of XYZ, but the most I see (when time experience is listed) is 'minimum 3'. Outside of something like nodejs, I'm not even sure 3 years will get you through the experience of a version upgrade with some tech stacks, let alone "senior" qualifications. But it will all come down to how you define "senior".
- agumonkey 7y ago
  I also have a dilemma. Spending 3 years in a project using <tech> doesn't mean much to me. Unless it's a serious gig with regular problem solving .. but if it's mostly management hell, documentation, ... you might not know much more than when you came in. I know a lot of things I learned in python on my own wouldn't happen in a job because you don't have time to play with everything in the language.

Double_a_92 7y ago

Most of the time you actually know more than you would assume. Even if you barely touched something, if you know about it you at least know what it is, what it can be used for, were to start learning... That's already much more than what average people can quickly pick up.