What you did today

[Walsingham]

Well, a bank is ultimately just numbers. I get worried by IT jobs being advertised and it's pretty obvious that they're being simplistic about the requirement, and inevitably going to reject solid applicants.

 

All this discussion has got me wondering to what extent unemployment (in the first world) is due to HR practices being so incredibly weak.

 

...Probably there's a gap in the market for an agency which could recognise good candidates for persistently re-occurring roles, and then upskill good people into those requirements. Not actually doing much upskilling, just doing enough to tick the boxes.

[melkathi]

It just all annoys me more, now that I have done that management master and supposedly HR-jobs are partly what I am applying for

 

edit: and regarding the bank: when the person evaluating my qualifications uses the terms "Bachelor" and "Diploma" interchangeably, I do not see how they are qualified to hire me.

Edited November 20, 2013 by melkathi

[Nepenthe]

What baffles me is teh baseline logic of having a department of (typically) very poorly educated and paid  mediocrities selecting (typically) selecting much better educated and...

 

Hang on.

 

It's obvious really. It's the slimy ****ers getting their revenge!

 

I feel much better, actually. Knowing that.

 

Yeah, the Finnish civil service used to be full of doctors (LL.D.s, mostly) in the early 20th century - in fact, a doctorate was viewed as an essential step in the civil service career. A majority of our presidents have held (research) doctorates. Then, when the civil service grew faster than the amount of LL.D.s, regular lawyers (and people with masters' from other fields) started getting more and more positions. Until they became the majority, when suddenly they stopped hiring doctors, because we are "too theoretical" (ie. have a clear qualification that sets us apart from the people doing the hiring). Now it's increasingly rare for people with an advanced academic degree to even attempt "real work", so it's even harder for the few of us with doctorates and no political affiliations that would allow us to be hired as government-paid experts by our cronies.

[melkathi]

To be honest though, the insistance on Phds in the civil service had become something silly. Simply holding a doctorate does not make someone more qualified as an administrator. As there usually was no evaluation of the doctorate thesis during the hiring process, the "expertiese" and "qualification" that was seen in the Dr. before the name was largely irrelevant to the positions filled. Instead it simply created an aristocracy of its own within the civil service.

That is not to say that a doctorate is not a clear qualification, but it has to be a meaningful qualification within the context of the position.

[Malcador]

What is really annoying is when you see a job opening and realize that the person who wrote the listing has no idea what they are writing. Even worse when the organization hiring is a bank... though it explains why the economy is going to hell.

 

Banks are some Initech-esque nightmare to work for, when I'm ever on site it's amazing to see the BS they have to deal with and red-tape everywhere.  I do like the progression charts though as you level up, can move from Junior Programmer to Junior Programmer Analyst to maybe Technical Programming Analyst someday!

[Nepenthe]

To be honest though, the insistance on Phds in the civil service had become something silly. Simply holding a doctorate does not make someone more qualified as an administrator. As there usually was no evaluation of the doctorate thesis during the hiring process, the "expertiese" and "qualification" that was seen in the Dr. before the name was largely irrelevant to the positions filled. Instead it simply created an aristocracy of its own within the civil service.

That is not to say that a doctorate is not a clear qualification, but it has to be a meaningful qualification within the context of the position.

 

Well, you've just given the "white" view as opposed to my "black", with the truth somewhere in the middle. I can obviously name just as many doctors who are administratively incompetent as I can (proportionally) name those with the same handicap and masters' degrees. OTOH, a doctorate, or more exactly the rather demanding research process and argumentative capability it tends to demand of one, does give you experience you can't easily gain otherwise. Additionally, especially when it comes to the law, it gives you more depth, and thus simply makes you a better lawyer as opposed to somebody who has JUST practical knowledge (again, someone with simply theoretical knowledge is just as handicapped, but in the opposite way). You don't have to read too many administrative decisions to know that the average civil servant has a grasp of legal argumentation (never mind the law itself) than can be described as rudimentary, at best.

 

So, really, it boils down to which prejudice won. Historically, it was the one you describe. Which is why I, who in addition to a doctorate have fairly considerable work experience from the practical side, keep having to prove myself in ways that people without advanced degrees never have to. It just boils down to people fearing what they don't understand, and a doctorate still being something of on arcane achievement.

[Enoch]

Hey, in the States, there's virtually no such thing as a Doctoral-level degree in law.  Technically a JD is a "Juris Doctor," but that's the threshold requirement to get licensed to practice at all in most States.  You get one typically via a 3-year course of study after getting your undergraduate degree, and there is no serious research/thesis/dissertation element.  (There are persuasive arguments that this could easily be shortened to 2 years, but those go nowhere because law schools want the additional tuition money and state Bar associations want the additional barriers to entry in the field.)  Some lawyers get an LLM ("Legum Magister") after that, but that's a 1-year course of study dedicated to a specific legal field.  (And the only field where an LLM gets you any kind of respect is in Tax law.)  That's really it.  You can find the occassional law professor who has a doctoral-level degree in a different field, but the majority of them just have a JD, or a JD plus a Masters-level degree in a different field (usually either an MBA or a situation where somebody got a Masters in an impractical field before "selling out" and going to law school). 

[Rosbjerg]

Was convinced into trying netdating a few days ago (it's evidently "inappropriate" for a guy my age to pick up young women in bars according to my female friends) - but by god are women online hardcore picky! haha.. well at least on paper/their profile.. I'm 6'1" and that's apparently a little too short for most!? (what, I'm 10 inches higer than you!!) and also too skinny and I'm also too young or too old.. No wonder these 46.000 single women are still single. Hah

 

And when you talk to them, it's suddenly not an issue.. guess it's just too scare off some of the suitors, to make it more manageable.

[Walsingham]

Sneezed so hard I hurt my neck.

 

Just wrapped up warm, eating fresh root ginger and drinking tea. Playing Baldur's Gate 1. Listening to an audiobook of War of the Worlds.

[Nepenthe]

Hey, in the States, there's virtually no such thing as a Doctoral-level degree in law. Technically a JD is a "Juris Doctor," but that's the threshold requirement to get licensed to practice at all in most States. You get one typically via a 3-year course of study after getting your undergraduate degree, and there is no serious research/thesis/dissertation element. (There are persuasive arguments that this could easily be shortened to 2 years, but those go nowhere because law schools want the additional tuition money and state Bar associations want the additional barriers to entry in the field.) Some lawyers get an LLM ("Legum Magister") after that, but that's a 1-year course of study dedicated to a specific legal field. (And the only field where an LLM gets you any kind of respect is in Tax law.) That's really it. You can find the occassional law professor who has a doctoral-level degree in a different field, but the majority of them just have a JD, or a JD plus a Masters-level degree in a different field (usually either an MBA or a situation where somebody got a Masters in an impractical field before "selling out" and going to law school).

Yeah, the us system is a bit of an anomaly globally, though. In most of europe a straight 3 year degree, ll.b., is enough to practice, after a little on-the-job training, perhaps. In finland and iirc sweden, you also need an ll.m., ie 3+2 years of law to practice on any level. Additionally, you can do a research doctorate 3+2+5 years on average, so it's the same system as in nearly all other fields apart from medicine.

[melkathi]

 

So, really, it boils down to which prejudice won. Historically, it was the one you describe. Which is why I, who in addition to a doctorate have fairly considerable work experience from the practical side, keep having to prove myself in ways that people without advanced degrees never have to. It just boils down to people fearing what they don't understand, and a doctorate still being something of on arcane achievement.

 

 

Prejudice is irrelevant. What matters historically in the public service is that a way was needed to establish a service free of the influences of the monarchy. To do this all decisions had to be layed out based on clear criteria. Academic qualification was the only viable option - they provided educated civic servants and criteria that were largely outside the influence of the powerful. Since then things have changed. The public service and bureaurocracy have grown, evolved and become the establishment. When seen completly as a bad thing it has become what it was designed to combat and most people seem to forget why at its core it is a good thing. Most western countries have gotten rid of that monarchy thing, at least to some extent, and the threat the bureaucracy was designed to protect from has shifted, without it able to shift and adapt accordingly. At the same time universities have also changed. Education is far more specialized than it used to be. (My original field, architecture, is a prime example. We weren't always split into archtiects, civil engineers, land surveyors etc etc etc.) As a result, having reached the level of a doctorate does no longer necessarily prove that the qualities needed for the job are truly met. It proves expertiese in a specific field, it proves research skills and above all else perseverance. But the first two will have to be acessed for relevance to the job posting. That is what doesnt happen though. As doctorates have become a simply formal requirement, in the recruitment process they are only a prestige badge really (hell, I've seen a dean advertise for a position for her personal assistant and requiring a phD). Yes, that can lead to the prejudice that people who do a doctorate are the ones who can't cope in the real world and do some proper work instead Funnily enough, once you get in, both public service and private organisations, to advance to the top you then need that title.

But looking at it purely from a  recruitment standpoint for a specific position, then yes the question should not if you have a doctorate but whether your doctor is in a specific field. If the doctorate only proves that 3-5 years have been spend in an irrelevant field, then it is not a qualification. And that is not even taking into account the quality of the research (where you could end up with a study like the thesis submitted by Lawrence of Arabia *shudder*)

 

And I am starting to forget all the other smart thigns I had planned to say. So I'll close with this:

Nep, you may be the most qualified person for the jobs you apply to. I have no way to judge and no reason to doubt it. I'll happily take your word for it. And I'll equally hapily agree that the idiots not hiring you are idiots for making that decission - but I'll do that not because you are Dr. Nep, but because you are Dr. Nep who spend a lot of time and effort to become awesome at what he does

 

Now I have got to get back to write for NaNoWriMo.

[melkathi]

 

Hey, in the States, there's virtually no such thing as a Doctoral-level degree in law. Technically a JD is a "Juris Doctor," but that's the threshold requirement to get licensed to practice at all in most States. You get one typically via a 3-year course of study after getting your undergraduate degree, and there is no serious research/thesis/dissertation element. (There are persuasive arguments that this could easily be shortened to 2 years, but those go nowhere because law schools want the additional tuition money and state Bar associations want the additional barriers to entry in the field.) Some lawyers get an LLM ("Legum Magister") after that, but that's a 1-year course of study dedicated to a specific legal field. (And the only field where an LLM gets you any kind of respect is in Tax law.) That's really it. You can find the occassional law professor who has a doctoral-level degree in a different field, but the majority of them just have a JD, or a JD plus a Masters-level degree in a different field (usually either an MBA or a situation where somebody got a Masters in an impractical field before "selling out" and going to law school).

Yeah, the us system is a bit of an anomaly globally, though. In most of europe a straight 3 year degree, ll.b., is enough to practice, after a little on-the-job training, perhaps. In finland and iirc sweden, you also need an ll.m., ie 3+2 years of law to practice on any level. Additionally, you can do a research doctorate 3+2+5 years on average, so it's the same system as in nearly all other fields apart from medicine.

 

 

Greece I think it's a 4 year degree and then you need to spend some time being a slave at a firm. And obviously you can try get a master to pass that 5 year mark to do a doctorate (3+ years).

Edited November 20, 2013 by melkathi

[BruceVC]

Was convinced into trying netdating a few days ago (it's evidently "inappropriate" for a guy my age to pick up young women in bars according to my female friends) - but by god are women online hardcore picky! haha.. well at least on paper/their profile.. I'm 6'1" and that's apparently a little too short for most!? (what, I'm 10 inches higer than you!!) and also too skinny and I'm also too young or too old.. No wonder these 46.000 single women are still single. Hah

 

And when you talk to them, it's suddenly not an issue.. guess it's just too scare off some of the suitors, to make it more manageable.

 

" inappropriate" ?

 

I don't see why, that's one of the main reasons around what bars and clubs are for. It may become unsatisfying or banal one day but its not like you are drugging these ladies and taking them home, I really don't get the word "inappropriate" around what you are doing.  Also Internet dating isn't for everyone so the traditional way of meeting people in bar\club may just be what works for you

[Gfted1]

I would never knowingly sleep with a married woman, even in a so called "open" marriage. Too easy to get a cap busted in your ass.

[melkathi]

I'm just an idiot who adheres to male codes of honour like don't sleep with another dude's woman. I'm quite certain that was it the other way round, a lot of those men wouldn't have had second thoughts

[Rosbjerg]

I certainly try my best not to, but I would be lying if I said I hadn't. My experiences in the last 1,5 years tell me that most people hold relationships to a very intellectual ideal and have a tendency to act on an emotional one.

 

 

 

" inappropriate" ?
 

I don't see why, that's one of the main reasons around what bars and clubs are for. It may become unsatisfying or banal one day but its not like you are drugging these ladies and taking them home, I really don't get the word "inappropriate" around what you are doing.  Also Internet dating isn't for everyone so the traditional way of meeting people in bar\club may just be what works for you

 

Thanks.. While I agree, it's always nice to be confimred in ones beliefs. I don't think internet dating is for me (yet), I might be a tad too 'aggressive' in my approach.

[Gfted1]

I certainly try my best not to, but I would be lying if I said I hadn't. My experiences in the last 1,5 years tell me that most people hold relationships to a very intellectual ideal and have a tendency to act on an emotional one.

Agreed, and more so the younger you are. Don't get me wrong, I liked my women slutty like that, but in those cases it tends to be more effort than it was worth if (when) it blows up in your face.

 

Im tired of being old. I want to go back to 21 and they can keep that damn wisdom that sucks the fun out of everything.

[Malcador]

Too easy to get a cap busted in your ass.

 

Always think about this when doing anything. "Is there a likelihood of me getting shot by doing this?"

[Rosbjerg]

I feel I would've missed out on a lot of the great stories, if I had kept to that philosophy.

[Nepenthe]

I'll just conclude the discussion on my part with a fact: most people who know me and the quality of my work assume I could get any job I want, while in fact I seem to be almost unemployable. Everything else is conjecture, whether it's the degree, coming from a "known" family etc.

[Nepenthe]

 

Too easy to get a cap busted in your ass.

 

 

Always think about this when doing anything. "Is there a likelihood of me getting shot by doing this?"

Followed by: "would it be worth it?"

[melkathi]

assume I could get any job I want, while in fact I seem to be almost unemployable.

 

It get's truly bad when that is also how one's love life turns out...

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

How did we get on ****ing married women? Anyways, today I'm sick after a pint of whiskey and little sleep. Going to go out with a girl tomorrow. I love being 21 *winks at gfted1*.

[Gfted1]

[Malcador]

 

 

Too easy to get a cap busted in your ass.

 

Always think about this when doing anything. "Is there a likelihood of me getting shot by doing this?"

Followed by: "would it be worth it?"

 

 

 

Well, naturally.  Can't think of many things that would be worth it.  YOLO, man.