4 ms·

But it is about "lying": you don't trust the quality of people's "actual work output" despite what their resume states. You have a "guilty until proven innocent

But it is about "lying": you don't trust the quality of people's "actual work output" despite what their resume states. You have a "guilty until proven innocent" attitude with respect to people's professional work. You aren't trusting that other companies develop talent or prune people "doing awful work". Sure, a resume isn't about "job performance" but how much do you distrust the labor market in your own industry that you think people can do awful work for 20 years and still remain meaningfully employed enough to have resume experience across all 20 of those years? I understand where you are coming from and appreciate it is a common attitude in this industry, I just think it is a wild attitude, and an attitude related directly to the immaturity of our industry that everyone assumes the labor market is inefficient and doesn't reflect "quality"/"performance".

kube-system 5y ago
> But it is about "lying": you don't trust the quality of people's "actual work output" despite what their resume states. No, I’m saying that resumes simply don’t convey quality of work. They convey the duration of work and who it was for. Duration isn’t a proxy for quality. Beyond the first couple years of experience, I don’t think I’ve seen much of a reliable pattern between experience and ability. I can’t really look at some random project at some random company on a resume and tell you whether participation in that project amounted to brilliant engineering work, or whether it was changing ‘if’ statements three times a week in a legacy system. > how much do you distrust the labor market in your own industry that you think people can do awful work for 20 years and still remain meaningfully employed enough to have resume experience across all 20 of those years? I’ve been on the wrong end of hiring mistakes where that was exactly the situation. There are definitely certain types of jobs that are “known for being cushy” in this industry. Although, that’s nothing unique to tech. People coast in tons of white-collar jobs.

kube-system 5y ago

> But it is about "lying": you don't trust the quality of people's "actual work output" despite what their resume states. No, I’m saying that resumes simply don’t convey quality of work. They convey the duration of work and who it was for. Duration isn’t a proxy for quality. Beyond the first couple years of experience, I don’t think I’ve seen much of a reliable pattern between experience and ability. I can’t really look at some random project at some random company on a resume and tell you whether participation in that project amounted to brilliant engineering work, or whether it was changing ‘if’ statements three times a week in a legacy system. > how much do you distrust the labor market in your own industry that you think people can do awful work for 20 years and still remain meaningfully employed enough to have resume experience across all 20 of those years? I’ve been on the wrong end of hiring mistakes where that was exactly the situation. There are definitely certain types of jobs that are “known for being cushy” in this industry. Although, that’s nothing unique to tech. People coast in tons of white-collar jobs.