@BernhardBarker You are mistaking examples for emphasis. And no, unless there is a shortage of qualified candidates, the reason for rejection will more likely be on reasons having nothing to do with the ability to get the job done. That is supposed to be screened out early during the review of the resume. The reality is you are going to invite 5-8 people who are all qualified, then look for reasons to not hire all but 2-3, then out of those 2-3, you're going to pick the 1 you can work with
@Old_Lamplighter I'm not mistaking anything for anything else. It makes up most of your answer. I can't see a reasonable interpretation of your answer that leads anywhere other than "you were most likely rejected for something you can do nothing about, and it was probably a petty reason too". In fact, you seem to think it's so important that even in a reply to someone pointing out the unjustified emphasis you further emphasise how important it is (while trying to say you're not emphasising it?).
@BernhardBarker You seem to have a problem with being able to see the forest for the trees. I am only responsible for sharing my knowledge, not your ability to comprehend it.
@BernhardBarker But let's turn this around for a second. You invite five people in for an interview, and confirm that all are qualified and could do the job. What criteria would you use to eliminate four of them?
@Old_Lamplighter You seem to have a problem of vaguely pointing out that other people have problems. While it's not in any way helpful, I'll give you that it's probably a lot easier than actually engaging in a discussion and giving a well-reasoned counter-argument.
@BernhardBarker I can only give a good counter argument to what amounts to a good argument in and of itself. You're a techie, you know, "Garbage in, garbage out", which does, in fact reflect poorly on me as I should not really engage with garbage, but I'll work on improving that.
Let's start with a nice, rational question. 5 candidates are interviewed. All of them have all of the technical skills, and solid work backgrounds. How do you eliminate four candidates? What criteria do you use?
@BernhardBarker I'm sure you were all puppies and rainbows. Perhaps I misread the condescension in "maybe you just have experiences mostly dealing with particularly petty people', and the general tone of that comment in general. As I said, Garbage in, and garbage out.
@Old_Lamplighter Your hypothetical is flawed because it ignores how many candidates are eliminated for lacking technical skills or other good reasons, and creates the entire-unsupported impression that most candidates aren't eliminated for such reasons.
@Old_Lamplighter "Perhaps I misread the condescension ... and the general tone" - you did.
@BernhardBarker It's a simple question, do I need to simplify it further?
Let's go with your assumption.
You interview 10 candidates, now, I'll assume your position is correct, and we eliminate 6 of them for technical reasons. (which should have been done during resume review) HOW do you eliminate the remaining 3? What criterion do you use?
BTW, the last round of interviews I participated in, 5 people were interviewed. One just blew it by being a nervous wreck. The other three we had to wrangle with finding reasons NOT to hire them.
Prior to that, we had two interviews for another position. It was down to 2, and they were almost identically qualified. My selection was vetoed on grounds that had nothing to do with technical skills at all.
And, believe it or not, there is a huge world out there outside of IT, where the skills aren't quite so hard or defined.
@BernhardBarker Case in point. You are interviewing six laborers for a construction crew, but only need 2, how do you choose?
@Old_Lamplighter Why are you asking me a hypothetical that takes as an assumption the very core of the only point I tried to make? That's almost certainly a logical fallacy that exists only to invalidate someone else's argument. Surely if you assume my point, then we're done here?
@BernhardBarker I tried to allow you to save face, so I'll go back to my original point. Most rejections have little to with the ability to do the job. You are 100% incorrect in assuming otherwise as the unqualified candidates are almost exclusively eliminated during the resume screening process.
@BernhardBarker IT is a bit different in that more people can slip past the resume review than the average industry, and certainly blue collar work where the actual technical skills are not as specialized. This is what irritates me most about this site: That we are so top-heavy with western, urban IT people, that every other perspective is ignored.
@Old_Lamplighter "save face"? So still trying to prove me wrong instead of actually having a discussion, then. I'll go back to what I said in my original comment: in your experience, perhaps. Not in my experience.
I'm sure you can find plenty of people online to explain to you why one shouldn't answer a loaded question, especially not when it's presented in a way that seeks to undermine one's own point.
@Old_Lamplighter And you do realise I only originally replied to you to address me apparently mistakenly reading emphasis where none exists, yet you've spent the last 14 comments further emphasising just how important it is, with me saying it's not important exactly 0 times after my first comment.
So, roughly speaking, you replied to my first comment 14 times while largely ignoring everything I've said since then.
@Old_Lamplighter To quote myself: "Your hypothetical is flawed because it ignores how many candidates are eliminated for lacking technical skills or other good reasons, and creates the entire-unsupported impression that most candidates aren't eliminated for such reasons"
@BernhardBarker, but you're walking back your original comment (wrong as it was). You made the assertion that my take was wrong because, and I quote" Or maybe you just have experiences mostly dealing with particularly petty people."
@BernhardBarker How many people are candidates are eliminated for for lacking technical skills or other good reason? Quantify your assertion
@BernhardBarker "Trust me bro" is not that high minded, rational argumentation you claimed to be so fond of
@BernhardBarker All I did was cite examples of what I have seen so that the OP doesn't end up chasing a black cat in a dark room where there is no cat. Why is that concept so difficult for you to grasp?
You've proven time and time again that you simply seek to prove me wrong and have no interest in actually engaging in a discussion, so I'll give you your wish and stop trying to have a discussion and just leave you believing you're right.
@BernhardBarker Nope, just trying to get you to prove your assertions beyond "trust me bro", which you haven't. But, I will accept your surrender as a sign of defeat.
@Old_Lamplighter How can I "prove" a lifetime of anecdotes? Why are you asking me for a greater burden of proof than what you provided? You, let me remind you, being one who posted the answer.
@BernhardBarker Yes, I posted an answer based on broad experience in numerous fields from blue collar work to management to IT, in addition, I taught classes at the Department of Labor, and I listed numerous examples I've seen, in addition. Your counter argument is "Trust me bro"
@BernhardBarker I've been called many things in my day. That's the first time the word subtle crept into the mix. Should I have said your argument amounts to "SEZ YOO?" is that less subtle?
@Old_Lamplighter You mean my opinion from a few dozen comments ago, that I haven't brought up since? You know your very first reply to me was a perfectly fine response, except for the part where you said I mistake examples for emphasis (which I still don't understand), but instead of just letting that lie, you just keep digging at something I'm not even arguing about. Why are you so obsessed with proving some random person on the internet wrong?
Why do you seem to be taking the fact that I'm saying anything at all as a sign that I'm digging in my heels at a point I made before, even though what I'm saying is completely unrelated to that?
@BernhardBarker it could be autism. I'm known for taking this too far. My apologies. I had to step away for a while in order to reorient myself. Again. I apologize.
Discussion on answer by Old_Lamplight…
Discussion on answer by Old_Lamplight…