7 ms·

> "As far as I've seen, job seekers in most industries rarely hire agents." If software job seekers hired agents, it would be the agents (the reputable ones an

> "As far as I've seen, job seekers in most industries rarely hire agents." If software job seekers hired agents, it would be the agents (the reputable ones anyway) that would require stringent testing of the seekers. One has to know exactly what one is selling to get the best price for the sale; they're not going to take the seeker's word for it any more than an employer would.

lapcat 4y ago
> it would be the agents (the reputable ones anyway) that would require stringent testing of the seekers That's a great way to get zero clients. ;-) It's one thing to go through all that crap to get a job, but who wants to go through all that crap just to get an agent? Not to mention, how is an agent even qualified to give a technical test to a software engineer. In real estate, a home inspection is required by the buyer's agent, not by the seller's agent. Sellers would rather not have that contingency. And the home inspection is only performed after the offer is accepted.
- ThrowawayR2 4y ago
  An agent that sells dud employees to employers will have zero clients much, much faster. An agent with a high placement and retention rate, well, people will be lined up around the block to become their clients. So ;-) right back 'atchya, sport. As for houses, they can be visually be examined by the seller's agent. They are not going to take the seller's word for it that it has four bedrooms when they can see it only has two and are certainly not going to try to sell it as if it had four.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > An agent that sells dud employees to employers will have zero clients much, much faster. An agent with a high placement and retention rate, well, people will be lined up around the block to become their clients. A new agent starts with zero clients. The beginning is "faster" than anything. You can't place any clients if you don't have any, so this is putting the cart before the horse. > As for houses, they can be visually be examined by the seller's agent. They are not going to take the seller's word for it that it has four bedrooms when they can see it only has two. Of course. But the linked article is "The 'working' job interviews that go too far". It discusses huge time-consuming pre-hire projects. This is not at all comparable to a walkthrough of a house. I've bought and sold, personally experienced the real estate market on both sides. Addendum: The seller's agent doesn't walk through the house to check whether the seller is lying about the number of rooms. Any buyer who goes to a showing will see the number of rooms immediately, nobody can get away with lying about that. The seller's agent walks through the house to estimate the list price of the house, to give the seller advice on how to best present the house, and to gather information for buyer questions. Also they need to take photos for the listing. I think you're misunderstanding the role of a real estate agent. The seller's agent is not the seller. The transaction is still directly between the seller and the buyer. Nobody buys a house because of the "reputation" of the seller's agent, that would be insanity. The purpose of an agent is to help their client through the process and give them advice. The seller's agent may hold open houses, but it's actually the buyer's agent who usually takes the buyer on a personal showing, so the seller's agent is not even there to "sell" the house to the buyer. A home inspection is not conducted by a real estate agent, it's conducted by a professional home inspector, it costs hundreds of dollars, it's paid for by the buyer, and it's not done until after the offer is accepted. I'm going on at length here because these facts should be obvious to anyone who has been on the real estate market. The way you describe agents in your imagination is not how real agents behave.

lapcat 4y ago

> it would be the agents (the reputable ones anyway) that would require stringent testing of the seekers That's a great way to get zero clients. ;-) It's one thing to go through all that crap to get a job, but who wants to go through all that crap just to get an agent? Not to mention, how is an agent even qualified to give a technical test to a software engineer. In real estate, a home inspection is required by the buyer's agent, not by the seller's agent. Sellers would rather not have that contingency. And the home inspection is only performed after the offer is accepted.

ThrowawayR2 4y ago
An agent that sells dud employees to employers will have zero clients much, much faster. An agent with a high placement and retention rate, well, people will be lined up around the block to become their clients. So ;-) right back 'atchya, sport. As for houses, they can be visually be examined by the seller's agent. They are not going to take the seller's word for it that it has four bedrooms when they can see it only has two and are certainly not going to try to sell it as if it had four.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > An agent that sells dud employees to employers will have zero clients much, much faster. An agent with a high placement and retention rate, well, people will be lined up around the block to become their clients. A new agent starts with zero clients. The beginning is "faster" than anything. You can't place any clients if you don't have any, so this is putting the cart before the horse. > As for houses, they can be visually be examined by the seller's agent. They are not going to take the seller's word for it that it has four bedrooms when they can see it only has two. Of course. But the linked article is "The 'working' job interviews that go too far". It discusses huge time-consuming pre-hire projects. This is not at all comparable to a walkthrough of a house. I've bought and sold, personally experienced the real estate market on both sides. Addendum: The seller's agent doesn't walk through the house to check whether the seller is lying about the number of rooms. Any buyer who goes to a showing will see the number of rooms immediately, nobody can get away with lying about that. The seller's agent walks through the house to estimate the list price of the house, to give the seller advice on how to best present the house, and to gather information for buyer questions. Also they need to take photos for the listing. I think you're misunderstanding the role of a real estate agent. The seller's agent is not the seller. The transaction is still directly between the seller and the buyer. Nobody buys a house because of the "reputation" of the seller's agent, that would be insanity. The purpose of an agent is to help their client through the process and give them advice. The seller's agent may hold open houses, but it's actually the buyer's agent who usually takes the buyer on a personal showing, so the seller's agent is not even there to "sell" the house to the buyer. A home inspection is not conducted by a real estate agent, it's conducted by a professional home inspector, it costs hundreds of dollars, it's paid for by the buyer, and it's not done until after the offer is accepted. I'm going on at length here because these facts should be obvious to anyone who has been on the real estate market. The way you describe agents in your imagination is not how real agents behave.