4 ms·
What? Three letter agencies recruit very heavily at my particular school and computer science department. While I can't comment on their hiring practices for p
by theboss 12y ago
What? Three letter agencies recruit very heavily at my particular school and computer science department.
While I can't comment on their hiring practices for people without a college degree (even though I know a few people who have had successful careers with the govt without any college experience), I think a more likely reason heavily tattooed people could have a problem working at the government is that they are more likely to be people who are difficult to clear (heavy drug use in the past, surrounded by people who are heavy drug users, etc.). They clearance process is honestly really stupid. Having tattoos will not disqualify you, but surrounding yourself in people with bad habits will.
As someone watching close friends get hired weekly to places where they "can't say where they will be working", it seems like Uncle Sam will hire anyone with a pulse who even expresses an interest in security.
And if not, the people will just go make twice the money at a defense contractor....
edit: I think a lot of the "red tape" belief for the government comes from people who are on the outside of this industry looking in not understanding the hiring process. It is the opposite from a place like Google.
Basically. You end up in someone's office and they talk to you for a few minutes and know if they are going to hire you within the first 3 minutes of the interview. The important part though, is that you are clearable. Since this is a long and expensive process, a lot of contractors put on their job requisitions "must be able to obtain a security clearance". They will believe you if you tell them you are clearable. That's because getting denied a clearance can be a big deal if you want to work at the gov't later. It also is a auto-fire for the particular job (I would know. The clearance I was denied was the best thing that ever happened to me)....
- asdfologist 12y agoDid you even read the article? It's about the difficulties of DHS in particular, and in the very beginning of the article, explicitly makes a distinction between it and the other three letter agencies: "the department is vying with the private sector and other three-letter federal agencies to hire and retain talent".
- theboss 12y agoNot sure how you can separate DHS from any of the other 3 letter agencies... The cultures are all pretty much the same....
- jrochkind1 12y agoWhat experience do you have with all of those agencies to give you the knowledge to tell us that?
- shitlord 12y agoHe has a point, though. The entire clearance process is a gigantic pain in the ass, and it takes WAY more time than anything else the DHS (or any triple letter agency) would throw at you. I, personally, been waiting for 15 months and know firsthand just how annoying it can be. That is one of the bottlenecks here; it is something that prevents the government from hiring the best and the brightest, and having them actually do useful work.
- lawnchair_larry 12y agoI'm not sure that I feel good about people named "shitlord" on HN are the types of people working at the DHS with clearance.
- shitlord 12y agoNot DHS. Anyway, I had another account here a long time ago (back when HN had google sign in). After they got rid of google sign in, I couldn't access my account anymore and had to make a new one. I was kind of annoyed, so I decided to make my username as shitty as possible.
- wyclif 12y agoActually, someone with the username "shitlord" is exactly who I'd want to be working at DHS.
- dang 12y agoAll: Far too many Hacker News comments begin with "Did you even read the article?" or the equivalent. Please don't do this. It's gratuitously personal and corrodes civility. You can communicate the same information without a personal edge by simply writing "The article says" or "As I read the article".
- teacup50 12y agoYour equating of tattoos, "heavy drug use", and "bad habits" is ridiculously judgmental, naive, and has almost nothing to do with the article.
- wyclif 12y agoPart of the problem is that in general, people who have the technical chops for security work don't really care about clearances and gov't red tape. More importantly, they don't know what is required to get clearance. They probably feel a bit of imposter's syndrome, thinking that stuff they've done in the past will disqualify them (even if it won't, because they've never been told the specifics of what will in fact disqualify someone for a security clearance).
- jmspring 12y agoGovt or not, I know many people and companies that would have an initial bias against individuals w/ certain tattoos. The ones that come to mind are people I know responsible for some of the initial screening and first person to interview with. Right, wrong, that is the sample set I am thinking about. Shoulders down, rarely an issue on tattoos. Many times easily concealed. Neck and up? There is a definite bias to get by. Even myself, I'd be a bit more hardcore in questions.
- BESebastian 12y ago> I think a more likely reason heavily tattooed people could have a problem working at the government is that they are more likely to be people who are difficult to clear (heavy drug use in the past, surrounded by people who are heavy drug users, etc.). They clearance process is honestly really stupid. Having tattoos will not disqualify you, but surrounding yourself in people with bad habits will. What the fuck is this drivel? Did you honestly just imply that anyone with tattoos is likely to have a history of heavy drug use? Seriously?