Nah'mean? and Other Interview Stories

« Return to Article
  • travisowens 2005-09-16 13:26
    <P>When I go to an interview I like to bring my favorite 40 and "pour a little out" in the office I'm interviewing at, ya know, to show love for my previous job that's about to be dead and gone.</P>
    <P>&nbsp;</P>
  • Otto 2005-09-16 13:32
    travisowens:

    <P>When I go to an interview I like to bring my favorite 40 and "pour a little out" in the office I'm interviewing at, ya know, to show love for my previous job that's about to be dead and gone.</P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P>Huh? I thought that's what the "exit interview" was for.</P>
  • Ytram 2005-09-16 13:37
    My project manager had a pretty good interview story.&nbsp; A month or
    two before I got hired, they started using a test to give to
    prospective employees.&nbsp; It was a hard test, but it was a "low on
    trivia, high on concept" test over .NET development and OO
    concepts.&nbsp; The hard questions didn't necessarily have a correct
    answer, but were mainly to see how someone would approach a problem.<br>
    <br>
    The first time they used the test, they handed it to the interviewee
    and put him in a semi-private room.&nbsp; Not five minutes later, he
    came out of the room, handed the test to my PM, claimed that he was no
    longer interested in the position, and left.&nbsp; My PM was sold on
    the usage of tests because he didn't have to spend the next hour
    figuring out that the guy was worthless.<br>
  • David 2005-09-16 13:43
    <P>I think the worst thing Ive ever done during an interview (well technically it was right after) was as follows:</P>
    <P>((Side note:&nbsp; IMLP was their co-op program designed to glean managers from Comp E./Comp S. students))</P>
    <P>Interviewer:&nbsp; So what do you think of our IMLP program?</P>
    <P>Me:&nbsp; The what program?</P>
    <P>*Interviewer explains IMLP program*</P>
    <P>Me:&nbsp; Oh, I hadn't really looked into what it stood for.&nbsp; I thought this was&nbsp;just a regular programming job.</P>
    <P>&nbsp;</P>
    <P>....yea...uuhh....I still got the job.&nbsp; Although after working there a quarter I was no longer sure if that was a good thing.</P>
    <P>&nbsp;</P>
  • Richard Nixon 2005-09-16 13:46
    Anonymous:
    <p>I think the worst thing Ive ever done during an interview (well technically it was right after) was as follows:</p>
    <p>((Side note:&nbsp; IMLP was their co-op program designed to glean managers from Comp E./Comp S. students))</p>
    <p>Interviewer:&nbsp; So what do you think of our IMLP program?</p>
    <p>Me:&nbsp; The what program?</p>
    <p>*Interviewer explains IMLP program*</p>
    <p>Me:&nbsp; Oh, I hadn't really looked into what it stood for.&nbsp; I thought this was&nbsp;just a regular programming job.</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>....yea...uuhh....I still got the job.&nbsp; Although after working
    there a quarter I was no longer sure if that was a good thing.</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    The question is: do you think it was the worst thing you've ever done
    because you told the truth about your lack of preparedness or is it the
    worst thing because of your lack of preparedness?<br>
    <br>
  • emurphy 2005-09-16 14:11
    My first full-time job used a test.&nbsp; One applicant took the test,
    failed, then later re-applied claiming "experience with (language in
    question)".&nbsp; Turned out his "experience" consisted of taking the
    test the first time.<br>
    <br>
  • Razzie 2005-09-16 14:12
    <P>About that Sit down! story:</P>
    <P>While I certainly won't say that erasing the blackboard is a smart thing to do without asking, I'm kinda amazed that such a relatively small incident gets the interviewer so upset.</P>
    <P>If I were doing an interview and the interviewee got so enthousiastic about a former project, I'd think of it as a major plus. If he'd, in his enthousiasm, start erasing the blackboard, I'd just tell him right away to hold it, but ask him to talk about it nonetheless.</P>
    <P>I think one of the best things to see in an interviewee - apart maybe&nbsp;from knowledge - is enthousiasm for the job or former jobs. So sending him away from such a small mistake is imho a bit strange to say the least.</P>
  • Impatient 2005-09-16 14:15
    Okay, those interviewees are all pretty dumb, make no mistake, but I can't help but think that the CTO and President mentioned are also the classic executive stuffed shirts who are more&nbsp;interested in finding yes-men than the most qualified. A guy gets excited about a past project, and this is a bad thing? Come on. And if someone used that "Beavis and Butthead" line on me, well, sure I'd be ticked, but I sure wouldn't walk out of the room in a huff. And then send the <EM>secretary</EM> back to do the dirty work?! Please! That CTO takes himself way too seriously.
  • Mike 2005-09-16 14:16
    Hmm, for the Sit Down! story it sounds from where I'm reading that the manager type turned down a competant person (the previous project had gone really well apparently) who was extremely passionate about what they do. Without more details it sounds more like a pointy-haired boss story where the boss is more interested in image than substance.

    For the handshake one yeah they guy did something dumb but it was hardly offensive like the Beavis&Butthead guy was. If the handshake was the *only* reason he was rejected then again I'd side with the interviewee.
  • Anonymous coward 2005-09-16 14:17
    I was being interviewed for a senior development position at a small,
    but possibly up-and-coming company. I interviewed with their "Director
    of Engineering" (who as it turned out, didn't have an engineering
    degree, but a marketing degree.)  This turned me off a bit. 
    Then I interviewed with the President, who was quite distracted while
    talking to me, what with all the email and phone calls that he had to
    read/take.  While he was describing the incredibly long work
    hours, and how they make sure that they buy employees dinner (but only
    during the week; on Saturdays, people can leave by 5), I decided it
    wasn't the place for me.  I told him this, and walked out. 
    He couldn't believe it!  There was no way I could work there, not
    for a non-technical engineering lead, nor a president who was proud of
    the long hours he made his employees worked. I like to think that I
    actually did them a favor by short-circuiting the interview process.<br>
  • adb 2005-09-16 14:38
    I don't know...the Sit Down! story may have had another aspect.  Did the guy keep talking because he was asked to explain, or would he not shut up?<br><br>I was doign a phone interview for QA engineering position and we, of course, asked him to talk about previous experience.  And...he wouldn't shut up!  Generally, the rule is to give a (maximum!) 2-3 minute answer to "tell me about a previous project" type questions, look for some sort of ok to continue, if ok rinse, lather, repeat.  Nooo...this guy kept talking...and talking...and talking...and talking!  When we attempted to interrupt several times he talked right over the top of us and kept going.  I can't recall just how abrupt I had to be to get him to stop, but it was significant.<br><br>There is enthusiasm, and there is cluelessness.<br><br><br>
  • Dan Hulton 2005-09-16 14:40
    <P>The first two stories were obvious stupidity.&nbsp; The whiteboard mistake was unfortunate, but I would have called the guy very hirable.&nbsp; The handshake thing is stupidity... but on the part of the interviewer.&nbsp; A weird handshake disqualified someone from a technical job?&nbsp; You're out of your mind, you priss.</P>
  • oracle 2005-09-16 14:40
    Well, as everybody knows, high profile computer geeks do have a lack of
    social skills and a strange sense of humor, Therefore I don't think
    dropping this "Beavis and Butthead" guy was inherently a good idea.<br>
  • Manni 2005-09-16 14:40
    <P>@Anonymous Coward: To play the devil's advocate, does that mean you're looking for a job where you can just barely skate by on an 8-hour workday? I'd like to see the place that hires a person who puts THAT on their resume.</P>
    <P>And as for non-technical engineering leads, we have plenty of those at my job. That's what happens when you heavily focus on a dying programming language and refuse to adapt to the newer technologies. If they had any real skill, they wouldn't be a manager. They'd be doing REAL work.</P>
    <P>The President of the company was distracted with emails and phone calls? Imagine that. Typically the higher up a person is on the management chain, the more their job revolves around social interaction and less about actual widget production. He was probably making the choice of&nbsp;communicating with potential/existing paying clients rather than dealing with an interviewee. If it were me, I'd pick the guy who's paying the bills.</P>
    <P>Sorry dude, this is the way of the world. At least that place would buy you dinner for staying late.</P>
  • dubwai 2005-09-16 14:49
    <P>I interviewed one guy&nbsp;for a Java developer position who came with a stack of faded pieces of paper in his hand.</P>
    <P>As I started asking him technical questions, he'd get this 'searching memory banks' look in his eye and then shuffle through his papers to show me some text or code that was related to my question.&nbsp; He didn't really answer the questions.</P>
    <P>The best thing was that he told on of my co-workers that he wanted to get the 1.3 JDK but just couldn't afford it at that time.</P>
  • dubwai 2005-09-16 14:52
    <P>
    Anonymous:
    The first two stories were obvious stupidity.&nbsp; The whiteboard mistake was unfortunate, but I would have called the guy very hirable.&nbsp; The handshake thing is stupidity... but on the part of the interviewer.&nbsp; A weird handshake disqualified someone from a technical job?&nbsp; You're out of your mind, you priss.
    </P>
    <P>I guess it depends on whether this guy was going to be in a dark office coding all day or sometimes out meeting and shaking hands with clients.</P>
  • Mike G 2005-09-16 14:53
    Anonymous:
    Well, as everybody knows, high profile computer geeks do have a lack of
    social skills and a strange sense of humor, Therefore I don't think
    dropping this "Beavis and Butthead" guy was inherently a good idea.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    I would have thrown him out the window.   The guy is
    obviously an arrogant ass and I wouldn't want to subject my employees
    to someone like him regardless of his skill.<br>
  • Damien Katz 2005-09-16 14:54
    Honestly, all the pomp in the described companies makes me think none
    of them are worth working for. They come off as pretentious
    look-the-look places rather than places where real accomplishment is
    recognized.<br>
  • Anonymous 2005-09-16 15:10
    I interviewed for a C# developer position, when .NET release version itself was barely a year old. I had about 6 months worth of .NET work experience on my resume. First, I had a technical phone-screen with 2 developers; obviously I did well, since they invited me to their office for a personal interview. After about 2 hours interviewing with practically everyone on their team, I was directed to the office of a “big suit”, his title was Director of Product Development (not a technical person what so ever). That interview lasted maybe 5 min. After not hearing from them for a month, a recruiter called me with the feedback he got from them.&nbsp; <BR>It turns out I don’t have enough “.NET experience”, while.NET framework was released less than a year ago. It’s obvious that a big suit didn’t OK me for whatever reason, even&nbsp;though I passed their technical screen. Probably his buddy or&nbsp;relative with more .NET experience got the job. [:^)]<BR>
  • Matt 2005-09-16 15:21
    Manni,
    You can take your unlimited hour work weeks if you want. You'll end up a burnt out mess at the end of them with nothing to offer others or yourself, and a free dinner won't make up for that.
    And if the President of the company can't devote himself to an interview he should have delegated. Either there's not enough staff or he couldn't give a shit about his employees. Would you really want to work under either circumstance?
  • Mung Kee 2005-09-16 15:22
    I interviewed at what turned out to be a sweatshop a couple years
    ago.&nbsp; The interview consisted of the hiring manager and three Sr.
    Engineers.&nbsp; All the while they were talking about "how much code
    they crank out."&nbsp; Guessing that this manager rode these monkeys
    for 60-70 hrs/week, I knew I didn't want the job.&nbsp; Once one of his
    cheerleaders finished talking, the manager stated "So, I hope you like
    to work a lot of hours." to which I replied "I hope you like to pay a
    lot of money."<br>
  • Greg 2005-09-16 15:23
    The "B&B" and "Sit Down!" interviews sound like the product of
    disfunctional workplaces, not bad interview candidates.  They're
    probably places I'd turn down, even if offered a job there.  Too
    uptight, nah'mean?<span id="PostFlatView"><strong><br>
    </strong></span>
  • Sean 2005-09-16 15:34
    Any one of these candidates would have had "director-level management" written all over them at my old company.<br>
  • johnl 2005-09-16 15:36
    @Manni: The thing is, the interview process is two-way. If an interviewee behaved like that, he wouldn't get hired, so an interviewer behaving like that isn't right either. Anything else just means the whole process is one-way. Will things be that one-way when I start working there? If so, I don't want to work there.

    I still value my sanity!
  • Alx 2005-09-16 15:42
    <span id="_ctl0_PostForm_Reply"><table class="postTable" align="center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="80%"><tbody><tr><td class="txt3">So, I hope you like
    to work a lot of hours." to which I replied "I hope you like to pay a
    lot of money."
    </td>
    </tr>
    </tbody></table>
    <p>
    </p></span>

    <span id="_ctl0_PostForm_Post">
    </span>
    <table class="postTable" align="center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="80%">


    <tbody><tr>
    <td class="column"><span></span><br>
    </td></tr></tbody></table><br>
    <br>
    Classic! :D&nbsp;&nbsp; What did he say then?&nbsp; Did ya get the job? :p<br>
  • Ytram 2005-09-16 15:43
    Matt:
    <span id="PostFlatView">You can take your unlimited hour work weeks if
    you want. You'll end up a burnt out mess at the end of them with
    nothing to offer others or yourself, and a free dinner won't make up
    for that.
    <br>
    <br>
    I agree completely.&nbsp; I don't care how much you get paid, if you
    are working 70+ hours a week, you don't have a life.&nbsp; Your family
    would never see you, you'd never do anything with that money but spend
    it on bills, and your code will be crap.&nbsp; I think when people
    start working more than 50 hours a week, they start producing shit code
    and it ends up taking even more time to fix your mistakes.<br>
    </span>
  • Mung Kee 2005-09-16 15:44
    Anonymous:
    <span id="_ctl0_PostForm_Reply"><table class="postTable" align="center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="80%"><tbody><tr><td class="txt3">So, I hope you like
    to work a lot of hours." to which I replied "I hope you like to pay a
    lot of money."
    </td>
    </tr>
    </tbody></table>
    <p>
    </p></span>

    <span id="_ctl0_PostForm_Post">
    </span>
    <table class="postTable" align="center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="80%">


    <tbody><tr>
    <td class="column"><span></span><br>
    </td></tr></tbody></table><br>
    <br>
    Classic! :D&nbsp;&nbsp; What did he say then?&nbsp; Did ya get the job? :p<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    They all laughed.&nbsp; I guess they thought I was joking.&nbsp; (Why
    would I joke about that?!)&nbsp; They wanted me to come in for another
    interview but I declined.<br>
  • Thankful 2005-09-16 15:54
    I get the impression that the WTF is supposed to be directed at the candidates, but the only people I'm saying WTF?? to when I read them is the interviewers and other staff at the companies. All I can say is that these stories make me incredibly grateful to be working for an incredibly company that values substance over appearance and doesn't think you're an idiot just because you don't precisely follow the unwritten protocols of the suit-and-tie world.
  • Craig 2005-09-16 16:03
    I was interviewing for a C/C++ position and as part of the interview I asked candidates to write 'strrev'.<br>
    One young guy stuggled with this for about half an hour, 3 sides of paper, but he could not do it.<br>
    <br>
    To try and save the situation he offered to write a C++ meta-template program that would display the current date and<br>
    informed me that he was activly contributing to GCC.<br>
    <br>
    God help GCC.<br>
    <br>
    Another guy asked me why we had not written our entire product in Python (remeber this is a C++ position).<br>
    <br>
    Another guy got really angry when I told him we didn't use XP.<br>
  • Mike R 2005-09-16 16:03
    Anonymous:
    I get the impression that the WTF is supposed
    to be directed at the candidates, but the only people I'm saying WTF??
    to when I read them is the interviewers and other staff at the
    companies. All I can say is that these stories make me incredibly
    grateful to be working for an incredibly company that values substance
    over appearance and doesn't think you're an idiot just because you
    don't precisely follow the unwritten protocols of the suit-and-tie
    world.
    <br>
    <br>
    The whiteboard guy, maybe. But the other two were clearly out of line.
    Wearing a suit to an interview is a sign of respect to the people who
    are going to employ you. You're supposed to look and behave
    professionally when you attend an interview as a professional. Would
    you really want Leisure Suit Larry to come code for you?<br>
  • Ytram 2005-09-16 16:06
    <span id="_ctl0_PostForm_Reply">All I can say is that these stories
    make me incredibly grateful to be working for an incredibly company
    that values substance over appearance and doesn't think you're an idiot
    just because you don't precisely follow the unwritten protocols of the
    suit-and-tie world.
    <br>
    <br>
    While I agree the whiteboard guy story probably was kinda harsh, I
    definitely wouldn't hire some jackass who showed up in disco
    attire.&nbsp; I'm not saying you have to wear a suit and tie to an
    interview, but you need to show that you're trying to impress your
    interviewers in some way.<br>
    <br>
    If you know what you're talking about it'll carry a lot more weight
    than what you're wearing, but some things just can't be overlooked.<br>
    </span>
  • bobintetley 2005-09-16 16:09
    I've read and re-read the SIT DOWN! Story 7 times now. 5 times earlier
    today and twice this evening and I still don't "get it". Why was the
    guy so pissed off? Because he erased a whiteboard with asking? Because
    he spoke coherently and enthusiastically about a previous project he
    felt had gone well?<br>
    <br>
    In this situation, the interviewers sound like arseholes and the guy should count himself lucky he didn't get the job.<br>
  • Dubious 2005-09-16 16:17
    No kidding.  What sort of sadistic jerk puts an interviewee into a
    conference room with a whiteboard they're not allowed to write
    on?  If I'm coming into an interview, I'm writing on the
    whiteboard.  Period.  I'm there to stuff a huge amount of
    information transfer into a very short time period.  If you can't
    be considerate enough to provide basic tools for that exchange, then
    that says some pretty awful things about the work environment there.<br>
    <br>
    Plus, if you leave a meeting room with the only copy important data
    still on the board, then tough cookies.   It was your
    responsibility to make a record of the information, and you've been
    derelict in your duties.  Not my problem.  Writing 'Save' in
    the corner and then leaving it for a week merely declares your disdain
    for the rest of your coworkers.  Perhaps you'd be happier working
    someplace else, so we don't have to deal with you anymore?<br>
    <br>
    As for the state of animation, people get nervous in interviews. 
    Sometimes this makes them tense, sometimes it makes them excited. 
    At least you can be certain that the overenthusiastic ones that they
    aren't the Toxic Coworker.<br>
    <br>
    And as for the 'handshake' incident, way to confess to violating about three EEO laws there, bucko.<br>
  • dubwai 2005-09-16 16:38
    <P>
    Anonymous:
    <BR>And as for the 'handshake' incident, way to confess to violating about three EEO laws there, bucko.<BR>
    </P>
    <P>Are their laws saying you can't discriminate against unorthodox handshakers?&nbsp; I didn't realize that was a protected class.</P>
  • Mung Kee 2005-09-16 16:46
    dubwai:
    <p>
    Anonymous:
    <br>And as for the 'handshake' incident, way to confess to violating about three EEO laws there, bucko.<br>
    </p>
    <p>Are their laws saying you can't discriminate against unorthodox handshakers?&nbsp; I didn't realize that was a protected class.</p>
    <br>
    <br>
    Yeah, I do two "back-of-the-hand slaps" BEFORE I do the
    "fake-joint-smoke."&nbsp; Am I a good candidate?&nbsp; Where am I going
    wrong?<br>
  • Daniel 2005-09-16 16:55
    Manni:
    <P>He was probably making the choice of communicating with potential/existing paying clients rather than dealing with an interviewee.</P>


    If he can't find the time to give his interviewees the basic respect of actually paying attention to the interview, he a) shouldn't be the one doing the interviewing, and b) isn't going to find very qualified employees, because the only people who'll put up with that kind of crap must be desperate for work.
  • Gene Wirchenko 2005-09-16 16:58
    Anonymous:
    No kidding.&nbsp; What sort of sadistic jerk puts an interviewee into a
    conference room with a whiteboard they're not allowed to write
    on?&nbsp; If I'm coming into an interview, I'm writing on the
    whiteboard.&nbsp; Period.&nbsp; I'm there to stuff a huge amount of
    information transfer into a very short time period.&nbsp; If you can't
    be considerate enough to provide basic tools for that exchange, then
    that says some pretty awful things about the work environment there.
    <br>
    <br>
    There is pen and paper.&nbsp; I bring some.<br>
    <br>
    It is common courtesy to ask first before erasing something.<br>
    <br>
    Plus, if you leave a meeting room with the only copy important data
    still on the board, then tough cookies.&nbsp;&nbsp; It was your
    responsibility to make a record of the information, and you've been
    derelict in your duties.&nbsp; Not my problem.
    <br>
    <br>
    You just caused a problem then.&nbsp; I hope you do not tout your problem-solving skills.<br>
    <br>
    Sincerely,<br>
    <br>
    Gene Wirchenko<br>
    <br>
  • John 2005-09-16 17:01
    Anonymous:
    I interviewed with the President, who was quite distracted while
    talking to me, what with all the email and phone calls that he had to
    read/take.<br>
    <br>Wow, that's the kind of situation where I'd ask if there was a better time for me to come back.  If I wanted to work there.<br><br>I was doing a telephone interview from my cube just last week when a cow-orker came into my cube and started looking at some old pictures I have.  I turned briefly and angrily hissed "I'm doing a phone interview!" at her.  She happily announced "That's OK, I won't talk to you" and continued leaning over me to look at the pictures!<br><br>I was majorly pissed.  I snatched the photo she was looking at (it was held to the cube bookshelf by a magnet) and flung it violently from my cube.  I was so flustered by the rudeness of the interruption that even after apologizing to the candidate, I still found it hard to concentrate for about the next five minutes.  And afterward, she was mad at me!  Now, a 20-something kid, I'd understand the total lack of manners and common sense.  But a 50-year-old woman?  WTF?<br><br>I haven't even bothered to go looking for the picture yet.<br>
  • dubwai 2005-09-16 17:02
    <P>
    Gene Wirchenko:
    Plus, if you leave a meeting room with the only copy important data still on the board, then tough cookies.&nbsp;&nbsp; It was your responsibility to make a record of the information, and you've been derelict in your duties.&nbsp; Not my problem.
    <BR><BR>You just caused a problem then.&nbsp; I hope you do not tout your problem-solving skills.<BR><BR>
    </P>
    <P>I think he's got a point.&nbsp; The only way to make sure something stays on a white board is to write it in permanant marker.&nbsp; I wouldn't recommed doing that.</P>
  • dubwai 2005-09-16 17:04
    <P>
    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:
    I interviewed with the President, who was quite distracted while talking to me, what with all the email and phone calls that he had to read/take.<BR>
    <BR>Wow, that's the kind of situation where I'd ask if there was a better time for me to come back.&nbsp; If I wanted to work there.<BR><BR>I was doing a telephone interview from my cube just last week when a cow-orker came into my cube and started looking at some old pictures I have.&nbsp; I turned briefly and angrily hissed "I'm doing a phone interview!" at her.&nbsp; She happily announced "That's OK, I won't talk to you" and continued leaning over me to look at the pictures!<BR><BR>I was majorly pissed.&nbsp; I snatched the photo she was looking at (it was held to the cube bookshelf by a magnet) and flung it violently from my cube.&nbsp; I was so flustered by the rudeness of the interruption that even after apologizing to the candidate, I still found it hard to concentrate for about the next five minutes.&nbsp; And afterward, she was mad at me!&nbsp; Now, a 20-something kid, I'd understand the total lack of manners and common sense.&nbsp; But a 50-year-old woman?&nbsp; WTF?<BR><BR>I haven't even bothered to go looking for the picture yet.<BR>
    </P>
    <P>Dude, sorry but that makes you seem like a&nbsp;total psycho.</P>
  • arty 2005-09-16 17:06
    Best interview ever:<br>
    <br>
    me: I see from your resume that you took a digital signal processing course in college.&nbsp; Can you tell me a bit about it?<br>
    interviewee: Well it was this ... uh ... class I took.<br>
    me: Well can you explain what you were expected to do in that class?<br>
    interviewee: uh ... process ... digital ... signals?<br>
    <br>
    My interview partner and I muted the phone just a scant second before busting into furious laughter.<br>
  • Omnifarious 2005-09-16 17:08
    Manni:
    <p>@Anonymous Coward: To play the devil's advocate,
    does that mean you're looking for a job where you can just barely skate
    by on an 8-hour workday? I'd like to see the place that hires a person
    who puts THAT on their resume.</p>

    <p>I don't get why people in this industry seem to think that working insane overtime is in the least reasonable. The CEO could've at least shown the good sense to be embarassed about the fact everybody was working such insane hours.</p>
    <p>I have a life. I like that I have a life. Ultimately, it makes me better at what I do. I'm not giving up my life for any job. It's just not worth it. I'm not a slave, and I won't act like one.</p>
    <p>As for the combination of non-technical 'director of engineering', and CEO proud of forcing ridiculous overtime on his employees, I say that that job deserved to be dropped faster than a hot potato. I've seen small companies. That combination goes nowhere and isn't worth any amount of money to put up with. If everybody would quit that company so they folded, they'd likely be doing the economy a favor by allowing the investment money to be directed into something that might actually be a net positive.</p>
  • RFlowers 2005-09-16 17:11
    <P>I would like to throw my 0010 cents in on the topic of hours at work. Myself, I would <STRONG>not</STRONG> like to work 60+ hours, although I could do it every once in a while. I am a 40 hour guy, and&nbsp;I know this hurts my career overall. I'm willing to make the trade-off and I have made decisions fully aware of the consequences. I've told others (go-getters) this, and they think I'm a fool. But these guys don't have families, not many friends, and their apartments are basically cubicles anyway. (They don't own their own home; maybe at retirement.) I envy the money they make, but I made my decision being aware what I was missing.</P>
    <P>That being said, there do seem to be a few that "have it all," but maybe it just seems that way. </P>
  • coder 2005-09-16 17:11
    <P>
    Anonymous:
    Best interview ever:<BR><BR>me: I see from your resume that you took a digital signal processing course in college.&nbsp; Can you tell me a bit about it?<BR>interviewee: Well it was this ... uh ... class I took.<BR>me: Well can you explain what you were expected to do in that class?<BR>interviewee: uh ... process ... digital ... signals?<BR><BR>My interview partner and I muted the phone just a scant second before busting into furious laughter.<BR>
    </P>
    <P>What's the problem? He asnwered your question. WTF?</P>
  • Ytram 2005-09-16 17:14
    John:
    <span id="PostFlatView">I was doing a telephone interview from my cube
    just last week when a cow-orker came into my cube and started looking
    at some old pictures I have.&nbsp; I turned briefly and angrily hissed "I'm
    doing a phone interview!" at her.&nbsp; She happily announced "That's OK, I
    won't talk to you" and continued leaning over me to look at the
    pictures!<br><br>I was majorly pissed.&nbsp; I snatched the photo she was
    looking at (it was held to the cube bookshelf by a magnet) and flung it
    violently from my cube.&nbsp; I was so flustered by the rudeness of the
    interruption that even after apologizing to the candidate, I still
    found it hard to concentrate for about the next five minutes.&nbsp; And
    afterward, she was mad at me!&nbsp; Now, a 20-something kid, I'd understand
    the total lack of manners and common sense.&nbsp; But a 50-year-old woman?&nbsp;
    WTF?
    <br>
    <br>
    I'm with dubwai on this one.&nbsp; You sound like you went psycho on someone doing something that shouldn't disturb you from a <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">phone</span> </span>interview.&nbsp;
    If they were chatting with you and what not, then I'd understand being
    a little pissed, but still throwing crap is never a professional thing
    to do.<br>
    </span>
  • Anonymous coward 2005-09-16 17:18
    The Sit Down guy is a jackass.  Yeah, I agree it's rude not to ask
    if it's ok to erase stuff on the board before using it, but come
    on...  If the stuff on the board is that important, don't bring a
    candidate in there.  Also, if this guy is the president or
    whatever, doesn't he know his company probably has a policy about
    letting outsiders know about sensitive internal "documentation" (i mean
    the whiteboard)?  What a dumbass....<br>
  • anon 2005-09-16 17:21
    Ytram:
    My project manager had a pretty good interview story.  A month or
    two before I got hired, they started using a test to give to
    prospective employees.  It was a hard test, but it was a "low on
    trivia, high on concept" test over .NET development and OO
    concepts.  The hard questions didn't necessarily have a correct
    answer, but were mainly to see how someone would approach a problem.<br>
    <br>
    The first time they used the test, they handed it to the interviewee
    and put him in a semi-private room.  Not five minutes later, he
    came out of the room, handed the test to my PM, claimed that he was no
    longer interested in the position, and left.  My PM was sold on
    the usage of tests because he didn't have to spend the next hour
    figuring out that the guy was worthless.<br>
    <br>
    If this test is given before an actual interview I would have walked
    out before even looking at the test.  Unless I'm certain that the
    job is worth the time investment I'm not going to waste my time. 
    If that makes me "worthless" then so be it.<br>
  • John 2005-09-16 17:21
    dubwai:
    Dude, sorry but that makes you seem like a total psycho.
    <br><br>Maybe I am.  I was completely focused on trying to concentrate on a staticky long distance call to a non-native-English speaker, and she was <span style="font-style: italic;">physically leaning on me </span>to see this picture, after I had told her I was interviewing someone.<br><br>I'm typically the model of politeness, but I have absolutely zero patience for that kind of rudeness.  Something in me just snapped and I unfortunately responded with as much rudeness as I was given.<br>
  • Omnifarious 2005-09-16 17:22
    Anonymous:
    I was majorly pissed.&nbsp; I snatched the
    photo she was looking at (it was held to the cube bookshelf by a
    magnet) and flung it violently from my cube.&nbsp; I was so flustered
    by the rudeness of the interruption that even after apologizing to the
    candidate, I still found it hard to concentrate for about the next five
    minutes.&nbsp; And afterward, she was mad at me!&nbsp; Now, a
    20-something kid, I'd understand the total lack of manners and common
    sense.&nbsp; But a 50-year-old woman?&nbsp; WTF?<br><br>I haven't even bothered to go looking for the picture yet.<br>


    <p>I know that this advice is completely unasked for, but might I humbly suggest an alternate course of action next time? I would suggest that you calmly reply "I'm sorry, but I find even the presence of people in my cubicle to be a distraction when I'm trying to talk on the phone. I'd be happy to show them to you later.". If she didn't get the hint then, showing some blatant irritation and anger might be appropriate. Otherwise, someone else pointed out, you just look like a psycho.</p>
    <p>I have a former co-worker who would've taken a similar action to yours. Or he would've just sat and stewed and done the interview badly and been really upset and angry all day about it and complained bitterly and maybe even left early because he was too angry to work. He's actually a very nice guy, but people tended to be afraid of him and treat him as if he might snap and mow down the building with automatic machine gun fire at any moment.</p>
  • Ytram 2005-09-16 17:24
    anon:
    <span id="PostFlatView">
    If this test is given before an actual interview I would have walked
    out before even looking at the test.&nbsp; Unless I'm certain that the
    job is worth the time investment I'm not going to waste my time.&nbsp;
    If that makes me "worthless" then so be it.
    <br>
    <br>
    We're talking about a test that shouldn't take more than 15 or 20
    minutes.&nbsp; If you feel that's not worth your time, then I
    definitely wouldn't want you as an employee anyways.<br>
    </span>
  • Brian P 2005-09-16 17:25
    <p>I posted this in my blog at http://myvogonpoetry.com/wp/?p=130 a fewweeks ago: <br>
    </p>
    <p>I, and another guy at work, interviewed
    someone today for a Java position. So, we’re sitting there talking to
    him and his cell phone rings. He gets his phone out and presses a
    button and puts it back. I figure he forgot to turn it off - no biggie.
    It rings again ~10 minutes later. He presses a button again and puts it
    back. ~15 minutes later it rings again and he answers it. I hear a
    woman on the other end ask for him and he asks if she could call back
    in about an hour. Unbelievable. </p>


    <p>If you are on an interview,
    show the people you are interviewing with some respect and that you
    really want the job and turn off your cell phone (or leave it in the
    car). The only reason we could think of to leave it on would be if your
    wife is pregnant and expecting to deliver soon and even then I would
    mention it before the interview starts. In an interview, you want to
    make the best impression you can and that experience REALLY gave a bad
    impression. <br>
    </p>
    Brian<br>
    <br>
    <br>
  • dubwai 2005-09-16 17:26
    <P>
    Ytram:
    John:
    <SPAN id=PostFlatView>I was doing a telephone interview from my cube just last week when a cow-orker came into my cube and started looking at some old pictures I have.&nbsp; I turned briefly and angrily hissed "I'm doing a phone interview!" at her.&nbsp; She happily announced "That's OK, I won't talk to you" and continued leaning over me to look at the pictures!<BR><BR>I was majorly pissed.&nbsp; I snatched the photo she was looking at (it was held to the cube bookshelf by a magnet) and flung it violently from my cube.&nbsp; I was so flustered by the rudeness of the interruption that even after apologizing to the candidate, I still found it hard to concentrate for about the next five minutes.&nbsp; And afterward, she was mad at me!&nbsp; Now, a 20-something kid, I'd understand the total lack of manners and common sense.&nbsp; But a 50-year-old woman?&nbsp; WTF?
    <BR><BR>I'm with dubwai on this one.&nbsp; You sound like you went psycho on someone doing something that shouldn't disturb you from a <SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold"><SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic">phone</SPAN> </SPAN>interview.&nbsp; If they were chatting with you and what not, then I'd understand being a little pissed, but still throwing crap is never a professional thing to do.<BR></SPAN>
    </P>
    <P>I'm not saying he doesn't have a valid complaint.&nbsp; But I would probably have said to the interviewee, "can you please hold for a second" put the phone on mute or hold and said "I'm on the phone with a candidate.&nbsp; Do yo mind coming back later to look at the pictures?"&nbsp; If she still didn't leave then I'd be pissed off.&nbsp; But all it sounds like to me is that&nbsp;he had a sweet (but maybe a little dense) woman looking at&nbsp;his pictures and he "hissed" at her before asking nicely for some privacy.&nbsp; Maybe the whole picture isn't here but it's seems to be a bit of an overreaction.</P>
  • RFlowers 2005-09-16 17:29
    <P>
    Anonymous:
    dubwai:
    Dude, sorry but that makes you seem like a&nbsp;total psycho.
    <BR><BR>Maybe I am.&nbsp; I was completely focused on trying to concentrate on a staticky long distance call to a non-native-English speaker, and she was <SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic">physically leaning on me </SPAN>to see this picture, after I had told her I was interviewing someone.<BR><BR>I'm typically the model of politeness, but I have absolutely zero patience for that kind of rudeness.&nbsp; Something in me just snapped and I unfortunately responded with as much rudeness as I was given.<BR>
    </P>
    <P>I kind of understand. Sometimes, you just gotta throw something, just to get people's attention.</P>
  • coder 2005-09-16 17:32
    <P>
    Anonymous:
    Ytram:
    My project manager had a pretty good interview story.&nbsp; A month or two before I got hired, they started using a test to give to prospective employees.&nbsp; It was a hard test, but it was a "low on trivia, high on concept" test over .NET development and OO concepts.&nbsp; The hard questions didn't necessarily have a correct answer, but were mainly to see how someone would approach a problem.<BR><BR>The first time they used the test, they handed it to the interviewee and put him in a semi-private room.&nbsp; Not five minutes later, he came out of the room, handed the test to my PM, claimed that he was no longer interested in the position, and left.&nbsp; My PM was sold on the usage of tests because he didn't have to spend the next hour figuring out that the guy was worthless.<BR>
    <BR>If this test is given before an actual interview I would have walked out before even looking at the test.&nbsp; Unless I'm certain that the job is worth the time investment I'm not going to waste my time.&nbsp; If that makes me "worthless" then so be it.<BR>
    </P>
    <P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">I think it's quite common to give a technical test or at least a phone screen before formal interview. They don't want to waste their time either by interviewing unqualified candidates. </SPAN></P>
    <P>&nbsp;</P>
  • John 2005-09-16 17:34
    Omnifarious:
    <br>I know that this advice is completely unasked for, but might I humbly suggest an alternate course of action next time? I would suggest that you calmly reply "I'm sorry, but I find even the presence of people in my cubicle to be a distraction when I'm trying to talk on the phone. I'd be happy to show them to you later.". If she didn't get the hint then, showing some blatant irritation and anger might be appropriate. Otherwise, someone else pointed out, you just look like a psycho.
    <br><br>Oh, I totally know what I <span style="font-style: italic;">should </span>have done, my hindsight being 20/20 just like everyone elses.  And under normal circumstances I probably would have been more polite in asking someone to leave.  It was the combination of the intense concentration needed to listen to a non-native speaker on a bad line combined with the physical contact that made me act out plus the fact that (in my mind) I had already asked her once to leave.  <br><br>For the record, it was just a 4x6 paper photo that I flung out the entrance of my cube; it's not like I threw a framed picture or that I threw it directly at her.<br><br>But yeah, I felt really stupid for having reacted that way.<br>
  • Ytram 2005-09-16 17:42
    John:
    <span id="_ctl0_PostForm_Reply">For the record, it was just a 4x6 paper
    photo that I flung out the entrance of my cube; it's not like I threw a
    framed picture or that I threw it directly at her.
    <br>
    <br>
    In all honesty, I was envisioning a framed picture.&nbsp; The picture
    in my head involved breaking glass, co-workers screaming, and children
    crying.&nbsp; I hereby retract my "psycho" remark.<br>
    </span>
  • anon 2005-09-16 17:43
    Ytram:
    <span id="PostFlatView"><br>
    We're talking about a test that shouldn't take more than 15 or 20
    minutes.  If you feel that's not worth your time, then I
    definitely wouldn't want you as an employee anyways.<br>
    </span>
    <br>
    <span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">Definitely </span>depends
    on the content of the test, I've been subjected to some pretty
    pointless (certification type) tests that probably provide no value to
    the employer.  That said, I would hopefully know something about
    the company and be interested in the job prior to being there and would
    do a test if required.  On the other hand if after the interview
    and I wasn't interested in the job I wouldn't hang around a do a
    test.  Interviews after all are a two way street.<br>
  • Ytram 2005-09-16 17:46
    anon:
    Ytram:
    <span id="PostFlatView"><br>
    We're talking about a test that shouldn't take more than 15 or 20
    minutes.&nbsp; If you feel that's not worth your time, then I
    definitely wouldn't want you as an employee anyways.<br>
    </span>
    <br>
    <span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">Definitely </span>depends
    on the content of the test, I've been subjected to some pretty
    pointless (certification type) tests that probably provide no value to
    the employer.&nbsp; That said, I would hopefully know something about
    the company and be interested in the job prior to being there and would
    do a test if required.&nbsp; On the other hand if after the interview
    and I wasn't interested in the job I wouldn't hang around a do a
    test.&nbsp; Interviews after all are a two way street.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Yeah, this test was basically a "do you actually know .NET or did you
    just put it on your resume".&nbsp; It also had a little bit of "do you
    have problem solving skills" mixed in with it.&nbsp; It was still a
    challenging test, but not length at all.&nbsp; We're talking a single
    piece of paper, front side only.<br>
  • John 2005-09-16 17:48
    Ytram:
    John:
    <span id="_ctl0_PostForm_Reply">For the record, it was just a 4x6 paper
    photo that I flung out the entrance of my cube; it's not like I threw a
    framed picture or that I threw it directly at her.
    <br>
    <br>
    In all honesty, I was envisioning a framed picture.  The picture
    in my head involved breaking glass, co-workers screaming, and children
    crying.  I hereby retract my "psycho" remark.<br>
    </span>
    <br><br>Yeah, I was wondering if you guys were getting the wrong impression which is why I bothered to mention it.  If I had actually thrown a framed photo at her, with shurikens of glass flying off in all directions, I'd probably be cooling my heels in the local jail with my new best friend Bubba (and deservedly so.)  But it was just a piece of paper, and I threw it hard enough that she'd have to go chase it (more like throwing a toy to distract a playful dog.)<br><br>But it was still a completely uncalled for reaction.  I should have instead restated my request to something more direct, yet  polite and restrained, like "quit leaning on me and get the effing hell out of my cube.  Pretty please."<br>
  • emptyset 2005-09-16 17:53
    <P>
    Manni:
    @Anonymous Coward: To play the devil's advocate, does that mean you're looking for a job where you can just barely skate by on an 8-hour workday? I'd like to see the place that hires a person who puts THAT on their resume.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>it's unreasonable to suggest people work overtime.&nbsp; if they love the job and are responsible, sure they might work later/weekends.&nbsp; if they don't, they don't and clock in their 40 hours.&nbsp; or less.&nbsp; after a while, they leave if they don't like the job.</FONT></P>
    <P>
    Manni:
    And as for non-technical engineering leads, we have plenty of those at my job. That's what happens when you heavily focus on a dying programming language and refuse to adapt to the newer technologies. If they had any real skill, they wouldn't be a manager. They'd be doing REAL work.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>this is sadly true.&nbsp; has anyone ever had a competent manager?</FONT></P>
    <P>
    Manni:
    The President of the company was distracted with emails and phone calls? Imagine that. Typically the higher up a person is on the management chain, the more their job revolves around social interaction and less about actual widget production. He was probably making the choice of&nbsp;communicating with potential/existing paying clients rather than dealing with an interviewee. If it were me, I'd pick the guy who's paying the bills.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>a company's biggest investment is in its employees, so there's no excuse he couldn't set aside the 15-30 minutes to get to know the candidate.&nbsp; what he did was rude, and reflects poorly on how he values employees, especially if he's bragging about the long hours they have to work.</FONT></P>
    <P>
    Manni:
    Sorry dude, this is the way of the world. At least that place would buy you dinner for staying late.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>how kind of them.&nbsp; i lose out on my personal life and they're out $15.&nbsp; that does wonders for morale.</FONT></P>
  • brazzy 2005-09-16 18:09
    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:
    Well, as everybody knows, high profile computer geeks do have a lack of
    social skills and a strange sense of humor, Therefore I don't think
    dropping this "Beavis and Butthead" guy was inherently a good idea.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    I would have thrown him out the window.&nbsp;&nbsp; The guy is
    obviously an arrogant ass and I wouldn't want to subject my employees
    to someone like him regardless of his skill.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    I really don't see how that makes him arrogant. Insensitive yes, but not arrogant.<br>
    <br>
    That "board" interview sounded like it was for a very high position,
    where working with people is an important part of the job. From someone
    wanting such a position, you can expect to be more cautious when
    talking to higher-ups.<br>
    <br>
    That being said, the CTO still comes over as a bit of a choleric and
    taking himself too serious. I mean come on, it was just a dumb joke. In
    his position I'd have informed the interviewee that he just committed a
    major gaffe and now has to work REALLY hard to still convince hiring
    wouldn't be a big risk. Let's see how he works his way out of a tight
    spot and whether he can admit his own errors. Would tell you a lot more
    about that guy's fitness for a manager position than all the questions
    you could ask.<br>
    <br>
  • JimNtexas 2005-09-16 18:14
    Anonymous:
    I was being interviewed for a senior development position at a small,
    but possibly up-and-coming company. I interviewed with their "Director
    of Engineering" (who as it turned out, didn't have an engineering
    degree, but a marketing degree.)&nbsp; .... I like to think that I
    actually did them a favor by short-circuiting the interview process.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    I had something very similar happen to me.&nbsp; I went to interview
    for a programming job.&nbsp; The manager met me at the door, and
    escorted me to his office.&nbsp; On the way to his office we went
    through a long room that had whiteboard paneling.&nbsp; In this room
    were about 20 people sitting at flat tables.&nbsp; No dividers, no
    cubes, just flat tables with computers and people sitting on cheap
    chairs. Lots of noise, no privacy, not even a drawer for anyone to
    store anything, like your fish scaling knife.<br>
    <br>
    So we go sit in the guys nice private office, he talks for a while, but
    I can't even concentrate on what he's saying. Finnaly I break in and
    ask if the people in that room were his developers.&nbsp; He says yes
    they were.&nbsp; I asked if that was some temporary arrangement, or is
    that where I would be working.&nbsp; He starts to go on about how great
    a big noisy bullpen is, how it worked so well for the four guys who did
    Doom, how much everyone in there loved working in this big room /
    hallway.&nbsp; Did I mention that this room connected to halves of the
    building, so people in one half had to walk through the development
    room to get to the other half?<br>
    <br>
    Any way I just tell that I couldn't work in a place like that, so it
    would be a waste of his time for me to prolong the interview.&nbsp; He
    was very shocked, but we shook hands and I left.<br>
    <br>
    The recruiter who had set this up went nuts, he called me up and screamed at me.&nbsp; <br>
    <br>
    But I'm sorry, I can't work in a 20 person bullpen.&nbsp; And I don't
    need the guy with the private office to tell me how wonderful it is to
    work with 19 other people all crammed into what was really a wide
    hallway.<br>
  • md2perpe 2005-09-16 18:29
    brazzy:
    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:
    Well, as everybody knows, high profile computer geeks do have a lack of
    social skills and a strange sense of humor, Therefore I don't think
    dropping this "Beavis and Butthead" guy was inherently a good idea.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    I would have thrown him out the window.&nbsp;&nbsp; The guy is
    obviously an arrogant ass and I wouldn't want to subject my employees
    to someone like him regardless of his skill.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    I really don't see how that makes him arrogant. Insensitive yes, but not arrogant.
    <br>The interviewee was insensitive and the CTO was oversensitive. :-)<br><br>brazzy, I think that you should read about "the geek syndrome", Asperger syndrome:<br>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aspergers_pr.html<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome<br>
  • triso 2005-09-16 18:30
    Anonymous:
    I was majorly pissed.&nbsp; I snatched the
    photo she was looking at (it was held to the cube bookshelf by a
    magnet) and flung it violently from my cube.
    <br>
    My rule is, "Never do anything (eg., violently flinging a photo) theat
    requires more than a little physical energy.&nbsp; Except for banging
    that cute new receptionist in the broom closet.<br>
  • Administrator 2005-09-16 18:34
    <P>I think it is insane..</P>
    <P>&nbsp;to not be able to manage a phone call and have someone lean on you.</P>
    <P>&nbsp;did she stink? was she ugly? was her belly pressing you against your desk?</P>
    <P>&nbsp;wtf?</P>
    <P>Today I think it is very important to be able to multi task .. kinda like a computer.</P>
    <P>&nbsp;or better yet.. kinda like windows where you spend most of your time idling and a little bit of time processing each of the tasks around you. be realistic .. if it wasnt your mental block of her being there while you talked on the phone then you would have been able to completely ignore her.</P>
    <P>&nbsp;</P>
    <P>&nbsp;Either way, you should apologize and take her out to lunch.</P>
  • Administrator 2005-09-16 18:34
    <P>I think it is insane..</P>
    <P>&nbsp;to not be able to manage a phone call and have someone lean on you.</P>
    <P>&nbsp;did she stink? was she ugly? was her belly pressing you against your desk?</P>
    <P>&nbsp;wtf?</P>
    <P>Today I think it is very important to be able to multi task .. kinda like a computer.</P>
    <P>&nbsp;or better yet.. kinda like windows where you spend most of your time idling and a little bit of time processing each of the tasks around you. be realistic .. if it wasnt your mental block of her being there while you talked on the phone then you would have been able to completely ignore her.</P>
    <P>&nbsp;</P>
    <P>&nbsp;Either way, you should apologize and take her out to lunch..</P>
  • John 2005-09-16 18:42
    "I get the impression that the WTF is supposed to be directed at the candidates, but the only people I'm saying WTF?? to when I read them is the interviewers and other staff at the companies. All I can say is that these stories make me incredibly grateful to be working for an incredibly company that values substance over appearance and doesn't think you're an idiot just because you don't precisely follow the unwritten protocols of the suit-and-tie world."

    That was very much my reaction as well. Sure, insulting the interviewers (the B&B one) was probably a mistake, but to get red in the face about it? I think that does more to indicate a lack of professionalism on the part of the interviewer. I would be glad to not have any further relationship with that company.

    I personally wear to an interview what is at the upper end of my regular work attire. So, dockers type slacks and a polo shirt (my regular work attire is t-shirt and sweats). If I ever got a comment like "you know this is a formal interview?" I would say "clearly you care more about interview attire than competent workers, thank you very much for your time, I hope you find a candidate you like", and I would stand up and leave.

    Certainly the lounge-lizard dress is a little extreme, but I would be more concerned about lack of communication skills than lack of wardrobe style.

    I think employers sometimes forget that the interview is a two-way street. It's not just about the candidate showing their qualifications, professionalism, and ability to fit into the company culture ... it's also about the company showing that it has the right focus, culture, and professional environment. I have no problem eliminating the company from my interview pool if they don't live up to my expectations.
  • Gene Wirchenko 2005-09-16 18:44
    Anonymous:
    Best interview ever:<br>
    <br>
    me: I see from your resume that you took a digital signal processing course in college.&nbsp; Can you tell me a bit about it?<br>
    interviewee: Well it was this ... uh ... class I took.<br>
    me: Well can you explain what you were expected to do in that class?<br>
    interviewee: uh ... process ... digital ... signals?<br>
    <br>
    My interview partner and I muted the phone just a scant second before busting into furious laughter.
    <br>
    <br>
    On the other side, I was once asked in an interview about my drinking
    problem.&nbsp; I asked the interviewer why he was asking about
    that.&nbsp; He said because of my red cheeks.&nbsp; I told him that I
    am a teetotaller (which I am).&nbsp; I could feel a wave of disbelief.<br>
    <br>
    Sincerely,<br>
    <br>
    Gene Wirchenko<br>
    <br>
  • Gene Wirchenko 2005-09-16 18:59
    brazzy:
    That being said, the CTO still comes over as a bit of a choleric and
    taking himself too serious. I mean come on, it was just a dumb joke. In
    his position I'd have informed the interviewee that he just committed a
    major gaffe and now has to work REALLY hard to still convince hiring
    wouldn't be a big risk. Let's see how he works his way out of a tight
    spot and whether he can admit his own errors. Would tell you a lot more
    about that guy's fitness for a manager position than all the questions
    you could ask.
    <br>
    <br>
    It was a stupid joke in a formal situation where one is supposedly
    trying to make a good impression.&nbsp; If the candidate is that bad
    then, what would he be like on a day-to-day basis?&nbsp; Were I the
    manager, I would be wary of this candidate, because of my existing
    staff: good working environment and all that.<br>
    <br>
    When there are so many candidates, why bother with someone who can not handle a basic social interaction?<br>
    <br>
    The excuse given by another poster that many computer sorts are that
    way is irrelevant.&nbsp; I want someone with at least basic social
    skills, as well as the technical skills.&nbsp; We techies complain
    about the socially-aware ignoramuses.&nbsp; Well, turnabout is fair
    play.<br>
    <br>
    Sincerely,<br>
    <br>
    Gene Wirchenko<br>
    <br>
  • John 2005-09-16 19:03
    "We're talking about a test that shouldn't take more than 15 or 20 minutes.  If you feel that's not worth your time, then I
    definitely wouldn't want you as an employee anyways."

    For me, it depends on the nature of the test.

    I'm a senior unix sysadmin. If the test is a series of questions that can all be answered with "man (some topic)", then I would let them know that they were probably looking for a junior sysadmin, and thank them for their time.

    If it's a series of questions that ask about high level approaches to problems, and things like that ... then that's a bit more reasonable.

    (our interview questions are more about comparisons of technologies, general approaches to problem solving, etc. we give them a sheet of paper up front, but it's just the list of interview questions we're going to ask them; we give them 10 minutes to look it over, so that they can think about them a little in advance; sometimes we let them pick the order, sometimes we pick the order)
  • brazzy 2005-09-16 19:04
    md2perpe:
    brazzy:
    <br>
    I really don't see how that makes him arrogant. Insensitive yes, but not arrogant.
    <br>The interviewee was insensitive and the CTO was oversensitive. :-)<br><br>brazzy, I think that you should read about "the geek syndrome", Asperger syndrome:<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    That gets thrown around a lot more often than is warranted by the
    estimated frequency and symptoms. It pretty clearly seems not to apply
    in this case, since the mistake was not based on failing to interpret
    someone's behaviour, but on saying something grossly unfitting for an
    obviously very formal meeting with people the guy did not know.<br>
    <br>
    And in any case, if he had it, then that would just mean the decision
    not to hire him for a job that involves working with people would be
    entirely correct.<br>
    <br>
  • anon 2005-09-16 19:25
    <P>I used to work for a company that screened their candidates by having them write and compile code on a laptop. The hiring manager just wanted to see if a candidate could actually, well, program and get some idea about ones coding style. It was a simple algorithm something that had to do with finding common elements between 2 arrays, It shouldn't have taken more than 30 min for an average programmer. <BR>One guy really took his time - well over an hour. Then he asked with a straight face, if he is going to be paid for his programming "services", and his code wasn't even that good. And&nbsp;I don't think he was joking.</P>
  • Crunchy 2005-09-16 20:05
    My favorite comment in an interview (I was the candidate):<br>
    <br>
    (It's about 15 minutes into the interview at this point)<br>
    Interviewer: So, when I get stressed out I just go out to my car and smoke a joint.&nbsp; Ya know!<br>
    Me: Umm..... <br>
    <br>
    <br>
  • jlarocco 2005-09-16 20:50
    Manni:
    <P>@Anonymous Coward: To play the devil's advocate, does that mean you're looking for a job where you can just barely skate by on an 8-hour workday? I'd like to see the place that hires a person who puts THAT on their resume.</P>
    <P>And as for non-technical engineering leads, we have plenty of those at my job. That's what happens when you heavily focus on a dying programming language and refuse to adapt to the newer technologies. If they had any real skill, they wouldn't be a manager. They'd be doing REAL work.</P>
    <P>The President of the company was distracted with emails and phone calls? Imagine that. Typically the higher up a person is on the management chain, the more their job revolves around social interaction and less about actual widget production. He was probably making the choice of communicating with potential/existing paying clients rather than dealing with an interviewee. If it were me, I'd pick the guy who's paying the bills.</P>
    <P>Sorry dude, this is the way of the world. At least that place would buy you dinner for staying late.</P>


    <p>
    I have to agree with the anonymous coward. I don't have a problem with working late, or working weekends when necessary, but when it's the expected, everyday behavior, there's a problem. Either hire enough people, or move the deadline back, or do something.
    </p>
    <p>
    I simply enjoy my personal time too much to work all the time. I don't think it's being unreasonable at all to not want to work 60 or 70 hours a week. I'm not saying I'd walk into an interview and say "Listen, I work 40 hours a week. If you want more than that, find someone else." but as far as I'm concerned, 40 hours a week should be the usual 80% or 90% of the time, or I probably don't want to work there.
    </p>
  • rizzo 2005-09-16 20:53
    This was in 1997 or so, so before most of the web job boards.<br>
    I posted an advert in the local paper, saying I needed a "VB programmer
    with good communication skills".  Among others, this guy calls to
    inquire about the job.  I ask, how many years of VB programming
    experience do you have.  He replies, "what?  I am not a
    programmer".  So I go, why did you call in then?  He replies:
    "I have good communication skills".  Apparently not.<br>
  • gc 2005-09-16 20:56
    Oh, no, it's the guy with a funny handshake!  Run!  Someone
    guard the whiteboard before the crazy whiteboard eraser guy gets here
    and replaces our shitty ERD with a properly normalized one!<br>
    <br>
    These interviews are like something from "Revenge of the Nerds". 
    The uptight executives are desparate to rule out the geeky developers
    based on appearance and mannerism.  However, they're really just
    afraid of someone getting their foot in the door and screwing up "the
    curve".<br>
    <br>
    Geek:  Look, I can complete that project in no time!  Here's how!  *writes on whiteboard*<br>
    <br>
    Manager (who's been working on project for 2 years):  Hey, you're
    not allowed to write on whiteboards!  You're fired! . . . err I
    mean not hired!<br>
    <br>
  • CPound 2005-09-16 22:13
    I have been laughing so hard at all of your comments. Especially the EEO one.<br>
    <br>
    You would be shocked to learn that the handshake guy was a <span style="font-style: italic;">caucasian</span> guy<span style="font-style: italic;">.</span> So what would be the EEO case? LOL!<br>
    <br>
    In defense to the other "non-hirings"...<br>
    <br>
    Are you seriously going to hire someone whose first comment is "Which one of you is Beavis?" And this is to their <span style="font-weight: bold;">future managers</span>?!? You must be joking. That was <span style="font-style: italic;">incredibly </span>stupid on his part. You can't defend that one.<br>
    <br>
    Are you seriously going to hire someone who does not even follow the <span style="font-weight: bold;">basic </span>rules of the interview process by wearing a leisure suit &amp; gold chain? That is totally <span style="font-weight: bold;">mocking </span>the interviewer. Everyone knows you're supposed to dress nicely. Duh!!!<br>
    <br>
    And are you seriously going to hire someone who does not even <span style="font-weight: bold;">ask </span>to erase the board before using it? If that's the way he acts in the interview, how is he going to ask on a day-to-day basis?<br>
    <br>
    One more thing about the handshake guy...the candidate is going to be someone who's going to represent a <span style="font-weight: bold;">professional </span>company and sometimes <span style="font-style: italic;">interact with clients</span>. How would that sort of handshake style come across in future business dealings?<br>
    <br>
    Think about it.<br>
  • vhawk 2005-09-17 00:06

    <p class="MsoNormal">Except if these were interviews for a sales job or political
    position, I cannot detect anything worth flipping a lid about.  Most of
    these presidents or what ever managers sound like the type that I would tell to
    put their jobs where the sun does not shine.  <br>
    <br>
    We had a friend that would go to new clients wearing a jean t-shirt and no
    shoes.  The fact of the matter is that he is till today the only person
    that I have seen that took a C manual without knowing the language - scanned it
    for 30 minutes and had a windowing system going on the same day (back in good
    old DOS days).<br>
    <br>
    Thus his attire had nothing to do with his ability - more important than his
    gold chain, hand shake or what ever excited these wonderful manager types. Some
    days I'm glad I'm a contractor - I need not take this type of hogwash from any
    employer - either they use me for my skills or they go and find themselves a worthless
    little 'Yes Sir, No Sir' corporation type.</p>

  • emurphy 2005-09-17 00:32
    Anonymous:
    <p class="MsoNormal">Except if these were interviews for a sales job or political
    position, I cannot detect anything worth flipping a lid about.&nbsp; Most of
    these presidents or what ever managers sound like the type that I would tell to
    put their jobs where the sun does not shine.&nbsp; <br>
    <br>
    We had a friend that would go to new clients wearing a jean t-shirt and no
    shoes.&nbsp; The fact of the matter is that he is till today the only person
    that I have seen that took a C manual without knowing the language - scanned it
    for 30 minutes and had a windowing system going on the same day (back in good
    old DOS days).<br>
    <br>
    Thus his attire had nothing to do with his ability - more important than his
    gold chain, hand shake or what ever excited these wonderful manager types. Some
    days I'm glad I'm a contractor - I need not take this type of hogwash from any
    employer - either they use me for my skills or they go and find themselves a worthless
    little 'Yes Sir, No Sir' corporation type.</p>
    <br>
    <br>
    What matters is not so much what puts a bug up the managers' asses, but
    what puts a bug up the customers' asses.&nbsp; Back in good old DOS
    days, good programmers were rare and arcane enough (or at least were
    perceived that way) that people were willing to put up with weird
    outfits and behavior; nowadays, though, that is not the case.<br>
    <br>
    If your employee really does have zero interaction with customers, then
    yeah, their weird outfits and behavior ought not to be a liability.<br>
    <br>
    Ditto on "occasional long hours are needed, but if they're the norm, then you're doing something wrong".<br>
    <br>
  • Stan Rogers 2005-09-17 00:34
    Anonymous:
    <p class="MsoNormal">Except if these were interviews for a sales job or political
    position, I cannot detect anything worth flipping a lid about.&nbsp; Most of
    these presidents or what ever managers sound like the type that I would tell to
    put their jobs where the sun does not shine.&nbsp; <br>
    <br>
    We had a friend that would go to new clients wearing a jean t-shirt and no
    shoes.&nbsp; The fact of the matter is that he is till today the only person
    that I have seen that took a C manual without knowing the language - scanned it
    for 30 minutes and had a windowing system going on the same day (back in good
    old DOS days).<br>
    <br>
    Thus his attire had nothing to do with his ability - more important than his
    gold chain, hand shake or what ever excited these wonderful manager types. Some
    days I'm glad I'm a contractor - I need not take this type of hogwash from any
    employer - either they use me for my skills or they go and find themselves a worthless
    little 'Yes Sir, No Sir' corporation type.</p>
    <br>
    <br>
    Attire and manner are not directly indicative of ability, no -- but
    they are essential to customer confidence. Like it or not, books <span style="font-weight: bold;">are</span>
    judged by their covers, and there are very few clients out there who
    are willing to bet even a moderate contract on the bastard child of
    Jack Black and Rainman anymore. This ain't the '90s. If there is any
    direct client contact, the client expects someone who at least fits
    their image of reliability and professionalism. And the shaggy code
    monkeys in the basement (or otherwise out of sight)? The ones who take
    a fully-developed requirements document and turn it into an
    application? Well, unless they are truly exceptional and have proven
    their worth, they can find themselves replaced by twice the number of
    discount monkeys in an outsourcing center. Not necessarily of the
    minimally-skilled random-spelling pidgin-_insert language_ variety,
    either. You get, on average, nearly two Canucks for the price of a Yank
    without time zone problems or language barriers -- most client
    stakeholders are blissfully unaware that the guy or gal at the other
    end of the phone line (or Netmeeting or Sametime conference) isn't as
    star-spangled as they are.<br>
    <br>
    Welcome to the new reality.<br>
  • andrey 2005-09-17 01:36
    With so many qualified people being unemployed, how the hell do asshats
    like that make it far enough to get an interview?  I feel for last
    guy, though.  Tells ya how little it takes to blow an interview.<br>
  • Lon Varscsak 2005-09-17 02:00
    John, she has the hots for ya man...it explains why she was all up in your business and why she was so upset at your reaction.
  • Lon Varscsak 2005-09-17 02:09
    emptyset:
    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>this is sadly true.  has anyone ever had a competent manager?</FONT>


    I have a pretty good manager. But he's a technical guy and while he doesn't write much software anymore he's still got game. However, I've always said that I would never work for a non-technical manager....it's hard to work for someone who makes less money than you. :D
  • cjs 2005-09-17 04:08
    Anonymous:
    <br>
    If this test is given before an actual interview I would have walked
    out before even looking at the test.&nbsp; Unless I'm certain that the
    job is worth the time investment I'm not going to waste my time.&nbsp;
    If that makes me "worthless" then so be it.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    I wouldn't recommend that approach, since the nature of the test is
    going to tell you a lot about what kind of programming environment
    you're going into. Spending one to two minutes reading the test will
    probably tell you as much or more about how smart that group is than
    spending ten minutes talking to them. Why not save the time?<br>
    <br>
    Back when I was hiring, too, I created a test for potential developers,
    but it was a "take home" test that I gave out to people before the came
    in for an interview. I prefer that even more because it saves us
    scheduling an appointment if the potential developer is a real loser.
    My co-workers had doubts about letting them do it at lesure, but once
    they saw the questions, they agreed that anybody who could do the
    research to answer them, if that was necessary, would be a fine
    addition to our team.<br>
  • ammoQ 2005-09-17 04:52
    <p><strong>Nah'mean?</strong></p>
    <p>This guy waltzes into the interview wearing an open shirt with a
    gold chain. I don't mean rapper gold chain, I mean Leisure Suit Larry
    style. He was exposing all sorts of grotesque hair on his chest. And he
    had the pimp swagger down too.<br>
    <br>
    </p><br>
    <p><strong>B&amp;B</strong></p>
    <blockquote style="margin-right: 0px;" dir="ltr">
    <p>This was a board interview. In case you are unfamiliar with the
    concept, it's where a large panel of people (from different
    departments) sit along one side of a giant table...and the candidate is
    on the other side. Sounds pretty scary? Well, apparently this candidate
    didn't think so.</p>
    <p>It was typical practice for the candidate to be in the room way
    ahead of time. He was in there long before any of us arrived. As we
    started to filter in the room, we said hello and took our seats. There
    were about 7 of us in total on the panel side and we were still missing
    2 members: the CTO (Chief Technology Officer) and his second in command
    (just a systems guy, but he had the longest tenure and therefore some
    of the greatest clout).</p>
    <p>While we were waiting, there was no idle chit-chat or talk wih the
    candidate. He was just sitting there with this really goofy look on his
    face. I remember thinking to myself that he was way too relaxed. After
    all, this was a senior programming position he was interviewing for.
    This was not just another random interview.</p>
    <p>In comes the CTO and his 2nd-in-command. They were chatting quite a
    bit walking in the door and were laughing to themselves about
    something. Even as they took they're seats they were still chuckling.
    Then, out of the blue, the candidate speaks up and asks, "So...which
    one of you is Beavis and which one of you is Butthead?"</p>
    <p>The room went completely silent. I would have laughed had I not been
    so shocked. Everybody was in complete awe. Apparently the candidate
    thought this would make a funny "ice-breaker", but he was so wrong. The
    CTO's face turned bright red. He was so angry he couldn't even
    speak...then he just got up, picked up his folder, and left the room.
    No one knew what to do. Finally, the receptionist came in the room and
    asked the candidate to come with her. We never did hear from that
    candidate again. Boy was that a stupid thing to say at an interview!<br></p></blockquote>
    <p><strong>Sit Down!</strong></p>
    <blockquote style="margin-right: 0px;" dir="ltr">
    <p>At a completely different company, in a much smaller work
    environment, I had to sit in with the all-in-one President/CTO/Systems
    Admin and interview a potential candidate. I was the lead programmer
    and we were interviewing the candidate for a web programming position.</p>
    <p>In walks the candidate and shakes both of our hands. It is a small
    office, so there is not a whole lot of room to move around. On the side
    of the candidate is a dry erase board where we would usually spec-out
    our stuff. Anyways, the interview is going along, and we notice that
    the candidate is quite animated. He's using a lot of hand gestures and
    sitting forward in his chair. Then, he starts to get excited when
    telling us about one of his past projects. He leaps up and starts to
    erase some of what's on the dry erase board...without asking. He's
    excitedly drawing some diagram on the board, and I look over to the
    President and you could see the steam coming out of his ears.
    Surprisingly, this goes on for at least a minute or two. Finally the
    candidate turns around and exclaims, "It was such a great project! We
    sure nailed that one!" and he tosses the marker back on its slot.</p>
    <p>The President just about screamed, "Would you please SIT DOWN!!!"</p>
    <p>Now you have to picture what happened the instant he said this. The
    candidate sat back in his seat so fast that you would have thought it
    was military. I mean, he sat down. It was instantaneous. I had such a
    hard time keeping from laughing and actually had to leave the room!</p>
    <p>I never did go back in there because I couldn't keep myself
    together. It wasn't shortly after I left that the candidate was
    escorted out. The President wasn't upset that I left the interview
    early because he had absolutely no intention of hiring the guy anyway</p></blockquote>
    <p><strong>The Handshake</strong></p>
    <blockquote style="margin-right: 0px;" dir="ltr">
    <p>This story isn't that exciting, it's just an illustration of what not to do during an interview.</p>
    <p>The candidate walks in, looking quite normal. He approaches the main
    interviewer and he extends his hand. The candidate then proceeds to do
    this "Whassup Dawg" handshake. You know, it's the one where you shake,
    then grab, then kind of grab again?</p>
    <p>However, the candidate didn't expect the interviewer's response of
    "Ok, Ok! Please, that's enough." He didn't say it in a mean way, just
    so that the candidate would stop. The candidate looked a little shaken
    by the interviewer's reaction, so he shook my hand normally.</p>
    <p>The interview ended up being okay, and there were no further
    incidents. But because of his weird "Whassup Dawg" handshake, he didn't
    make it any further in the process.</p></blockquote>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
  • ammoQ 2005-09-17 05:00
    ehh.... this forum is kinda weird<br>
  • ammoQ 2005-09-17 05:09
    What I really wanted to say (short version, since the forum software ate my original post):<br>
    <br>
    None of these stories tell anything about the technical skills of the
    canditates. People say and do stupid things when they are nervous,
    which is typical for interviews. As an interviewer, I would be
    suspicious if a canditate seems to calm&amp;experiencend in doing
    interviews - he's probably doing that often.<br>
  • foxyshadis 2005-09-17 06:35
    My main impression is just that you're not interviewing with a company
    or some ideal of a perfect interviewer. You're interviewing with one or
    several human beings, with quirks and stereotypes and generally pressed
    for time. And the bosses are interviewing human beings as well, who
    slip up once in a while and might have different expectations of
    working than the comany does. One person's reasonable is another's out
    of line, and part of interviewing is finding someplace that matches the
    two with a bit of flexibility. Might as well hit incompatibilities in
    the interview than afterward, when it's much harder to get rid of
    someone or leave. I see some people missing that
    (especially on the first page), but I guess that's their perogative.<br>
    <br>
    I think part of the point of the stories is that both candidates and interviewers can be goofy and picky. =p<br>
    <br>
    Lord knows I remember a few interviews I rode sidesaddle on. Like the
    guy who interviewed for web designer and coordinator, seemed competent
    and came up with some good plans when we threw some situations at him,
    so we hired him part time... and two weeks later he stops showing up,
    later saying he moved to north carolina and oops, forgot to mention
    that in the interview.<br>
    <br>
    (I wish I could interview a pimp. Did he have a fedora?)<br>
  • Gijs van Swaaij 2005-09-17 08:57
    Why? I think that a test is a great way to make a first distinction
    between people who know what they are talking about and people who are
    just clueless. This is especially for technical jobs, where your actual
    skills in your field of study are probably your most important asset.
    Of course, in the end you will need to interview everyone who has
    gotten at least a reasonable score, but on the whole, I think it is a
    good way for the manager to save some of his precious time (and, in the
    case above, it even saves the applicant some time). Plus, you are sure
    that the guy you eventually hire has some skills.<br>
  • Richard Nixon 2005-09-17 09:17
    ammoQ:
    What I really wanted to say (short version, since the forum software ate my original post):<br>
    <br>
    None of these stories tell anything about the technical skills of the
    canditates. People say and do stupid things when they are nervous,
    which is typical for interviews. As an interviewer, I would be
    suspicious if a canditate seems to calm&amp;experiencend in doing
    interviews - he's probably doing that often.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Or maybe he's just a calm person that handles pressure well? Gee, that would be an awful candidate!<br>
    <br>
    Furthermore, going on a lot of interviews, meaning you're evaluating a
    lot of possible career choices in an attempt to find the right job for
    you, is now a bad thing? Sure - people are sometimes nervous in
    interviews but it is their job to sell themselves.<br>
    <br>
    Your opinion shows that your science background is quite lacking. I would not hire you on that basis alone. Stop posting.<br>
  • ammoQ 2005-09-17 10:30
    Richard Nixon:
    <br>
    Or maybe he's just a calm person that handles pressure well? Gee, that would be an awful candidate!<br>
    <br>
    Furthermore, going on a lot of interviews, meaning you're evaluating a
    lot of possible career choices in an attempt to find the right job for
    you, is now a bad thing? Sure - people are sometimes nervous in
    interviews but it is their job to sell themselves.<br>
    <br>
    Your opinion shows that your science background is quite lacking. I would not hire you on that basis alone. Stop posting.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Fortunately, chances are I will never apply for a job at your company.<br>
  • Anonymous 2005-09-17 11:48
    Recently, where I work, we've been giving interviewees <a HREF="/forums/42721/ShowPost.aspx">This piece of code</a> and asking them what is wrong with it. We've gotten some interesting replies, such as "it uses inefficient data structures".
  • UncleMidriff 2005-09-17 11:50
    Richard Nixon:
    ammoQ:
    What I really wanted to
    say (short version, since the forum software ate my original post):<br>
    <br>
    None of these stories tell anything about the technical skills of the
    canditates. People say and do stupid things when they are nervous,
    which is typical for interviews. As an interviewer, I would be
    suspicious if a canditate seems to calm&amp;experiencend in doing
    interviews - he's probably doing that often.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Or maybe he's just a calm person that handles pressure well? Gee, that would be an awful candidate!<br>
    <br>
    Furthermore, going on a lot of interviews, meaning you're evaluating a
    lot of possible career choices in an attempt to find the right job for
    you, is now a bad thing? Sure - people are sometimes nervous in
    interviews but it is their job to sell themselves.<br>
    <br>
    Your opinion shows that your science background is quite lacking. I would not hire you on that basis alone. Stop posting.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    I took ammoQ's remark about being suspicious of a person who's very
    comfortable in the interview setting to mean that, if a person is calm
    and experienced in doing interviews, maybe it's because he's done a lot
    of them.&nbsp; If he's done a lot of them, maybe that's because he's
    simply evaluating many companies, trying to find the right one for
    him...or maybe it's because he's a jackass who jumps ship to a new job
    every six months when he finds out that his current employer has
    outrageous expectations of him, like that he'll show up to work on time
    and get stuff done.&nbsp; If it's the former, great!&nbsp; If it's the
    latter, not-great!&nbsp; Either way, I'd be suspicious, meaning that
    I'd put a little extra effort in trying to discern the reason for his
    behaviour during the interview.<br>
    <br>
    Your post shows that your ability not to respond too harshly to people
    too quickly, making youself out to be an ass, is quite lacking. I am
    annoyed by your posts on that basis alone. Stop posting.&nbsp; ;)<br>
  • CPound 2005-09-17 11:55
    Stan hit the nail right on the head.<br>
    <br>
    The 90's are over...and as great as they were you can't keep living in the good 'ol days.<br>
    <br>
    How things have changed:<br>
    <ul>
    <li>Outsourcing is in. So showing up at an interview "being yourself"
    isn't going to cut it anymore. You either "fit in" or "get out". You
    have to be <span style="font-weight: bold;">twice </span>as professional and skilled in an interview these days. Think about it, there's plenty more where <span style="font-weight: bold;">you </span>came from...and they're overseas and cheaper.</li>
    <li>Professionalism is in. The quirkiness of the 90's has long since
    past. People are looking for reproduceable results and high-quality
    customer relations. This means the long-haired, hide-in-the-basement
    type of programmer needs to <span style="font-weight: bold;">take a bath</span>, be presentable, and <span style="font-weight: bold;">sit up straight</span>. The clients now visit the office.<br>
    </li>
    <li>Knowledge is in. Your neighbor down the street is no longer going
    to be "tricked" into paying you $50 to build them a website. Sorry to
    burst your bubble. They're now hosting their <span style="font-weight: bold;">own </span>websites on their <span style="font-weight: bold;">own </span>servers, probably selling <span style="font-weight: bold;">beanie babies</span>.</li>
    </ul>
    The whole dynamic has changed. Things are now more professional, more
    geared towards quality products, and even more conservative.<br>
    <br>
    This means the long-haired weirdos will have to cut their shag rugs.<br>
  • jmo 2005-09-17 12:49
    <P>leisure suit guy -&nbsp;stunning lack of respect for a formal interview. In the UK it was never the case that u would be able to wear what u like to an interview - it may have been ok in the US for certain companies (like Microsoft), but in the rest of the world, its a no no. And besides, why risk it? Every IT company i have ever worked for, i've went along in my suit for the interview, and when i've started a job, turned up my first few days in suit (or shirt, tie, trousers) and not long after that, its back to denims and a t-shirt once you find the "lay of the land" as it were. Yes, a suit doesnt mean u can do a job, but show some respect!</P>
    <P>Beavis guy - twat, plain and simple</P>
    <P>CEO with the phone, email and long hours - lack of respect by him - twat - i'll work long hours when needed, but if thats the norm, i'm not interested and your company is either doing it all wrong, or trying to make up for bad mistakes</P>
    <P>Sit Down guy - the interviewer is a twat - but i feel the whole story wasnt fully described</P>
  • ammoQ 2005-09-17 13:11
    UncleMidriff:
    <br>
    I took ammoQ's remark about being suspicious of a person who's very
    comfortable in the interview setting to mean that, if a person is calm
    and experienced in doing interviews, maybe it's because he's done a lot
    of them.&nbsp; If he's done a lot of them, maybe that's because he's
    simply evaluating many companies, trying to find the right one for
    him...or maybe it's because he's a jackass who jumps ship to a new job
    every six months when he finds out that his current employer has
    outrageous expectations of him, like that he'll show up to work on time
    and get stuff done.&nbsp; If it's the former, great!&nbsp; If it's the
    latter, not-great!&nbsp; Either way, I'd be suspicious, meaning that
    I'd put a little extra effort in trying to discern the reason for his
    behaviour during the interview.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Exactly, that's what I meant. One more thought: Of course it's the job
    of the canditate to sell himself; on the other hand, it's the job of
    the interviewer to find the best person for the job. Refusing an
    excellent coder because of his handshake might be a poor decision. If
    your company already has 5 geek-type programmers, the eloquent
    salesperson-type programmer will probably not fit into the team. The
    interviewer has to consider that.<br>
    <br>
    CPound:
    <br>


    How things have changed:<br>

    <ul>
    <li>Outsourcing is in. So showing up at an interview "being yourself"
    isn't going to cut it anymore. You either "fit in" or "get out". You
    have to be <span style="font-weight: bold;">twice </span>as professional and skilled in an interview these days. Think about it, there's plenty more where <span style="font-weight: bold;">you </span>came from...and they're overseas and cheaper.</li>
    </ul>
    <br>
    You cannot outsource everything. Many jobs require customer contact and
    physical presence, so they cannot be transfered to Elbonia.
    Unfortunately for the long-haired hide-in-basement type of programmer,
    their jobs are more likely to be transferable, since customer contact
    is hardly an option. On the other hand, one excellent programmer can be
    worth more than 5 average programmers. Some tasks are so difficult that
    a big team of average skilled people will only build a bloated, slow,
    incomplete solution, while a single excellent programmer could make it
    much better. It would be stupid to turn such a programmer down if he
    ever applies for a job (something that is not very likely for several
    reasons).<br>
    <br>
    <ul>
    <li>Professionalism is in. The quirkiness of the 90's has long since
    past. People are looking for reproduceable results and high-quality
    customer relations. This means the long-haired, hide-in-the-basement
    type of programmer needs to <span style="font-weight: bold;">take a bath</span>, be presentable, and <span style="font-weight: bold;">sit up straight</span>. The clients now visit the office.</li>
    </ul>
    <br>
    <br>
    Though this is true to some extent, in my experience customers don't
    expect too much in terms of style when they visit the office. Sometimes
    they just want to make sure the company has the number of programmers
    claimed.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <ul>
    <li>Knowledge is in. Your neighbor down the street is no longer going
    to be "tricked" into paying you $50 to build them a website. Sorry to
    burst your bubble. They're now hosting their <span style="font-weight: bold;">own </span>websites on their <span style="font-weight: bold;">own </span>servers, probably selling <span style="font-weight: bold;">beanie babies</span>.</li>
    </ul>

    The whole dynamic has changed. Things are now more professional, more
    geared towards quality products, and even more conservative.<br>

    <br>

    This means the long-haired weirdos will have to cut their shag rugs.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Knowledge is in, true, but in too many cases that means: knowing the
    buzzword of the week (BOTW). Especially large corporations often start
    a project by defining "it has to be made with BOTW" although they have
    no skills with that. Then they start looking for people who know BOTW,
    but how can you interview canditates when you don't know BOTW yourself?
    As a result, they contract the cheapest applicants or the best
    self-sellers.<br>
  • emurphy 2005-09-17 17:13
    CPound:
    <br>
    The clients now visit the office.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Or, much more commonly, we have to visit the clients' office.&nbsp; At
    least sometimes - I can get quite a lot done through a Terminal Server
    connection to the client's network, but some things require you to be
    there in person.<br>
    <br>
  • Unregistered 2005-09-17 17:41
    Richard Nixon:
    Your opinion shows that your science
    background is quite lacking. I would not hire you on that basis alone.
    Stop posting.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Didn't I tell you to leave already?&nbsp; Go on, get out of here.&nbsp;
    You don't post anything worth reading and are simply trolling for
    flames.&nbsp; Scat, fool.<br>
  • John 2005-09-17 20:33
    "Every IT company i have ever worked for, i've went along in my suit for the interview,"

    I've worked for a software company where, if you showed up in a tie, you were thanked for your time, and excused. So, it is not necessarily the safe choice.
  • CPound 2005-09-17 22:37
    "<span id="_ctl0_PostForm_Reply">I've worked for a software company where, if you showed up in a tie, you were thanked for your time, and excused.</span>"<br>
    <br>
    What company was that? Were your chairs <span style="font-weight: bold;">bean bags</span> and did you use <span style="font-weight: bold;">power crystals</span> to channel your team's creative energies?<br>
    <br>
    <span style="font-style: italic;">That type of company died with the 90's.</span><br>
    <br>
    I worked at one place where the managers wore <span style="font-weight: bold;">kimonos </span>and walked around in a daze singing some <span style="font-weight: bold;">mantra chant</span>, which was supposed to release the "<span style="font-weight: bold;">evervescent flow</span>" or some garbage like that.<br>
    <br>
    That company lasted 3 months. It no longer exists.<br>
  • Omnifarious 2005-09-18 02:54
    CPound:
    What company was that? Were your chairs <span style="font-weight: bold;">bean bags</span> and did you use <span style="font-weight: bold;">power crystals</span> to channel your team's creative energies?
    <br>
    <p>Amazon is a little like that.&nbsp; Most companies in the
    Seattle area are, and Seattle still produces a whole bunch of software
    and has many profitable companies.&nbsp; Personally, you're making
    yourself sound like a bigot and stuffed shirt I'd be happy not to work
    near.</p>
  • tufty 2005-09-18 04:02
    Well, here's one.

    Back in - ummmm - '94 or so, I guess, I'd taken 6 months out to do a performance project. Previous employers wouldn't let me do the leave-of-absence thing, so I'd told them to stuff their job, in that case. Anyway, was starting to put out the old feelers for work, and got an interview at [major financial institution]. C++, Solaris, just my cup-o-tea at the time. So, along I went. Suit, tie, the whole 9 yards. Except, I had a show to do the next week, as a part of that had an 'unorthodox' haircut, which I couldn't make non-obvious. So, I went along anyway. After all, I could explain it if I wanted the job, right?

    So, I arrive, it's 6pm, and the building is empty. I go up, meet the interviewer, we do the usual formalities, I've completely forgotten about my barnet and he's said nothing. So, we do the non-technical side, it's all going swingingly. Tech test. Interviewer has some stuff to do, so says, "look, I'll go and sort out some live issues for 10 or 15 minutes, here's the tech test, I'll be back before you're done". So off he toddles, I take one lok at the test and laugh, it's all straight out of Meyers, so I have it aced in about 3 minutes flat. I've done and administered tests like this about a gazillion times, after all. So, I'm bored, and write him a new set of C++ tests...

    Anyway. He comes back in after fixing his live issues, sees me frantically scribling away, and says, "Oh, I'll give you another 5 minutes if you like", to which I reply, no, I'm rewriting your C++ test, your old one is rubbish. He kind of double-takes, then asks me what I mean, so I explain that any know-nothing fuckwit with a copy of Better C++ could blag their way in, and pass my test over to him. As expected, 100% on the test, and he liked my new version. Interview aced, guy still hasn't mentioned my hair, but as I leave says "as far as I'm concerned, you have the job".

    So. Interview 2, two days later, with interviewer's boss. Ace that one too.

    Then... a week of nothing. So, I phone up the sharks^H^H^H^H^H^Hagency and ask what's going on. they phone the client, and eventually get back to me. they want a 3rd interview. Non-formal. In a pub. Okay, say I. So, along I go, meet the original interviewer. Smalltalk, a guinness, and I'm being careful how much I drink. Eventually, he comes out with it. "This is going to sound really petty, but would you consider cutting your hair off?". "Of course" I reply. By all accounts, one of the secretaries had seen me coming in for interview #2 and had commented to her boss "[name deleted] is hiring a PUNK!" and within seconds the whole operation was scandalised... The "interview" continued until I could no longer stand.

    I ended up working there for 2 years :)

    Simon
  • rsynnott 2005-09-18 09:37
    The whiteboard thing, in particular, looks like a company which doesn't really want to hire good people.<br><br>It is worth noting that a lot of very good programmers are quite socially disfunctional.<br>
  • rsynnott 2005-09-18 09:39
    RFlowers:
    <p>I kind of understand. Sometimes, you just gotta throw something, just to get people's attention.</p>
    <br><br>Ah, right. There are drugs you can take for that, you know.<br>
  • rsynnott 2005-09-18 09:46
    emptyset:
    <p><font face="Courier New" size="2">this is sadly true.&nbsp; has anyone ever had a competent manager?</font></p>
    <br><br>Yes, actually. But I was working for a state hospital at the time. They seemed to be surprisingly good at keeping away incompetents, at least in their IT department. (One of the little shops in an outpatients' area was another matter. One of the people who worked there pressed the "Government Environmental Levy" button for all purchases (In this country you must pay 15cent per plastic bag, which goes directly to the department of the environment; this, surprisingly enough, works) meaning that the hospital made no money on them).<br>
  • Corkscrew 2005-09-18 11:10
    John:
    "Every IT company i have ever worked for, i've went
    along in my suit for the interview,"
    I've worked for a software company where, if you showed up in a tie,
    you were thanked for your time, and excused. So, it is not necessarily
    the safe choice.
    <br>
    <br>
    I'm still trying to figure out the logic behind that. My understanding
    was that, these days, a suit is pretty much standard dress for an
    interview. So what, you wanted someone with either no awareness of
    fashion or no interest in good presentation?<br>
    <br>
    Ever since it got explained to them using phrases like "social
    engineering", a lot of geeks have had a fairly good grasp of what I'd
    consider basic interview skills.<br>
  • CPound 2005-09-18 11:39
    I don't think I'm a bigot or a stuffed shirt.<br>
    <br>
    My comments are based on a lot of personal experiences I've had in the
    past with all sorts of companies. When I first started out, I was so <span style="font-weight: bold;">innocent </span>and <span style="font-weight: bold;">clueless</span>. I didn't know about the different styles of management. Now with all these experiences under my belt, some might say I'm <span style="font-weight: bold;">jaded</span>. The bad experiences wear you down after a while, and you start preferring one management style over another.<br>
    <br>
    In hindsight, I've noticed the trend for companies to be either:<br>
    <ul>
    <li>a free-for-all company, where anything goes - a "<span style="font-weight: bold;">commie</span>" company</li>
    <li>a militant, work-you-to-death company, where bosses scream orders at you - a "<span style="font-weight: bold;">fascist</span>" company</li>
    </ul>
    It is strange that their is rarely a <span style="font-weight: bold;">middle-ground style</span> company. They usually fit into one of the two categories.<br>
    <br>
    I've worked at both style companies, and I must admit that the "<span style="font-weight: bold;">commie</span>" style company sucks more. This is because everybody has their heads in the clouds and their "<span style="font-weight: bold;">political commissars</span>" try to brainwash you into embracing their corporate culture.<br>
    <br>
    Don't get me wrong, the "<span style="font-weight: bold;">fascist</span>"
    style sucks big time too. Most days you don't know if you should say
    "hi" to your boss or give him the raised hand salute. But typically
    these "fascist" companies tend to get <span style="font-weight: bold;">results</span> and they survive somewhat longer than the "<span style="font-weight: bold;">commie</span>" companies...however it's usually at the expense of the programmer's <span style="font-weight: bold;">health </span>and <span style="font-weight: bold;">sanity</span>.<br>
    <br>
    What to do then? Be thankful if you can find a <span style="font-weight: bold;">middle-ground</span> company. One where people are respected as <span style="font-weight: bold;">human beings</span> and you're not stressed out every-single-day. I'm at a place like that now, and I hope it lasts for a long time.<br>
  • David P. Murphy 2005-09-18 15:47
    CPound:
    I have been laughing so hard at all of your
    comments. Especially the EEO one.&nbsp;&nbsp; {...}&nbsp; One more
    thing about the handshake guy...the candidate is going to be someone
    who's going to represent a <span style="font-weight: bold;">professional </span>company and sometimes <span style="font-style: italic;">interact with clients</span>. How would that sort of handshake style come across in future business dealings?<br>
    <br>
    Think about it.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Too bad that wasn't mentioned in the original post, as it obviously
    makes a significant difference.&nbsp; But at least you got a laugh out
    of it.<br>
    <br>
    ok<br>
    dpm<br>
  • David P. Murphy 2005-09-18 15:57
    Anonymous:
    Best interview ever:<br>
    <br>
    me: I see from your resume that you took a digital signal processing course in college.  Can you tell me a bit about it?<br>
    interviewee: Well it was this ... uh ... class I took.<br>
    me: Well can you explain what you were expected to do in that class?<br>
    interviewee: uh ... process ... digital ... signals?<br>
    <br>
    My interview partner and I muted the phone just a scant second before busting into furious laughter.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    I interviewed for a senior programming position with a decent company back in 1993.  I was facing<br>
    three people:  the president, the C expert, and the OS expert.  The C guy started off the techincal side<br>
    by writing the following on the markerboard<br>
    <br>
             char foo[20];<br>
    <br>
    and asking me "what is that?"  I had nothing to say, and I'm sure the look on my face was entertaining,<br>
    as I simply sat there and stared at it, then at them, then back at the board, then back at them . . .<br>
    finally I managed to slowly enunciate "it . . . declares . . . an array of characters?"<br>
    <br>
    Fortunately they didn't throw me out right then; my delayed response (and tone of uncertainty) was<br>
    due solely to my surprise at being asked such a basic question.  They picked up the pace, asking<br>
    more challenging questions, and I answered them satisfactorily.  They explained later that some people<br>
    did in fact apply for positions to which they were not qualified in any ways, which was news to me.<br>
    Of course, back then I lived a very sheltered life, and had yet to learn of the Myriad Clueless.<br>
    <br>
    ok<br>
    dpm<br>
  • ammoQ 2005-09-18 16:21
    CPound:
    <br>
    One more thing about the handshake guy...the candidate is going to be someone who's going to represent a <span style="font-weight: bold;">professional </span>company and sometimes <span style="font-style: italic;">interact with clients</span>. How would that sort of handshake style come across in future business dealings?<br>
    <br>
    Telling him "please don't do this fancy handshake with our clients" would not be sufficient?<br>
  • Stan Rogers 2005-09-18 17:11
    ammoQ:
    CPound:
    <br>
    One more thing about the handshake guy...the candidate is going to be someone who's going to represent a <span style="font-weight: bold;">professional </span>company and sometimes <span style="font-style: italic;">interact with clients</span>. How would that sort of handshake style come across in future business dealings?<br>
    <br>
    Telling him "please don't do this fancy handshake with our clients" would not be sufficient?<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Probably not. It shows a distinct inability to distinguish between
    formality and familiarity. That is not to say that the fellow can't
    learn to make the distinction, but that is probably something he should
    figure out while selling himself rather than selling the company.<br>
  • LaurieF 2005-09-18 19:11
    <P>
    Manni:
    @Anonymous Coward: To play the devil's advocate, does that mean you're looking for a job where you can just barely skate by on an 8-hour workday? I'd like to see the place that hires a person who puts THAT on their resume.
    </P>
    <P>My place. I am a co-owner of a consulting company. I'd imagine that all our full-time workers are able to work those hours, when needed. Some of them regularly do sixty, and get paid for it. I trust them to be as productive for the extra twenty-odd over the 37-40 they would normally do. But if they're happier working <EM>normal</EM> hours, and they're good at their job, I'm happy too. In fact, probably more so.</P>
    <P>Personally I ascribe to the idea, "Work smarter, not harder." Quality over quantity. Although I've been up around forty hours over the last fortnight, normally I hover around 35. My current contract refuses to pay over eight hours/day anyway, so I don't do it. I stay alert and relaxed, and I don't get ratty.</P>
    <P>Silliest thing I ever said at an interview (at a contracting&nbsp;agency, twenty-umm-two years ago), when asked by the interviewer about work I'd done maintaining an old a/cs payable system in my previous job: "Oh it was rubbish - it never worked, crashed quite often and made my life hell." My blood froze when he said, "When I was at&nbsp;[large, blue computer company]&nbsp;I sold that system." Oh. Still, being honest (and a bit too blunt) didn't hurt, because&nbsp;I got the job.</P>
  • MyCatOwnz 2005-09-18 19:25
    triso:
    Anonymous:
    I was majorly pissed.&nbsp; I snatched the
    photo she was looking at (it was held to the cube bookshelf by a
    magnet) and flung it violently from my cube.
    <br>
    My rule is, "Never do anything (eg., violently flinging a photo) theat
    requires more than a little physical energy.&nbsp; Except for banging
    that cute new receptionist in the broom closet.<br>
    <br>
    Broom closet, eh? Sounds like a good idea, assuming the cleaners only
    buzz the office at night. After all, stationary cupboards tend to be a
    little risky, during the day...<br>
  • Rob 2005-09-18 19:53
    <font size="3"><span style="font-family: Arial;">@comment on "EEO? But he's Caucasian!"<br><br>Wow.<br><br>Apparently Caucasians can't be discriminated against?<br></span></font>
  • Rob 2005-09-18 20:01
    To an extent.<br><br>I happen to /like/ wearing shirts and ties. Not because I'm all staid and stuffy. Pretty much the opposite. I just am one of those people who look better/natural/more relaxed than in a polo shirt and tracksuit pants...<br>
  • Richard Nixon 2005-09-18 20:42
    John:
    "Every IT company i have ever worked for, i've went
    along in my suit for the interview,"
    I've worked for a software company where, if you showed up in a tie,
    you were thanked for your time, and excused. So, it is not necessarily
    the safe choice.
    <br>
    <br>
    That's patently stupid. Someone shows up showing the proper amount of
    respect to show that they are taking the job seriously - and the
    company excuses them?<br>
    <br>
    I call you a liar "John." Grab a piece of fat and slide off.<br>
  • Aussie SysAdmin 2005-09-18 23:15
    Ytram:
    Matt:
    <span id="PostFlatView">You can take your unlimited hour work weeks if
    you want. You'll end up a burnt out mess at the end of them with
    nothing to offer others or yourself, and a free dinner won't make up
    for that.
    <br>
    <br>
    I agree completely.  I don't care how much you get paid, if you
    are working 70+ hours a week, you don't have a life.  Your family
    would never see you, you'd never do anything with that money but spend
    it on bills, and your code will be crap.  I think when people
    start working more than 50 hours a week, they start producing shit code
    and it ends up taking even more time to fix your mistakes.<br>
    </span>
    <br>
    <br>
    Try 37.5 hours a week. There have been studies that show that working
    over about 40 hours a week your productivity actually goes down overall
    because you're more burned out.<br>
    <br>
    Sarah<br>
  • Drak 2005-09-19 01:50
    emptyset:

    <P>
    Manni:
    @Anonymous Coward: To play the devil's advocate, does that mean you're looking for a job where you can just barely skate by on an 8-hour workday? I'd like to see the place that hires a person who puts THAT on their resume.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>it's unreasonable to suggest people work overtime.&nbsp; if they love the job and are responsible, sure they might work later/weekends.&nbsp; if they don't, they don't and clock in their 40 hours.&nbsp; or less.&nbsp; after a while, they leave if they don't like the job.</FONT></P>
    <P>
    Manni:
    And as for non-technical engineering leads, we have plenty of those at my job. That's what happens when you heavily focus on a dying programming language and refuse to adapt to the newer technologies. If they had any real skill, they wouldn't be a manager. They'd be doing REAL work.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>this is sadly true.&nbsp; has anyone ever had a competent manager?</FONT></P>
    <P>
    Manni:
    The President of the company was distracted with emails and phone calls? Imagine that. Typically the higher up a person is on the management chain, the more their job revolves around social interaction and less about actual widget production. He was probably making the choice of&nbsp;communicating with potential/existing paying clients rather than dealing with an interviewee. If it were me, I'd pick the guy who's paying the bills.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>a company's biggest investment is in its employees, so there's no excuse he couldn't set aside the 15-30 minutes to get to know the candidate.&nbsp; what he did was rude, and reflects poorly on how he values employees, especially if he's bragging about the long hours they have to work.</FONT></P>
    <P>
    Manni:
    Sorry dude, this is the way of the world. At least that place would buy you dinner for staying late.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>how kind of them.&nbsp; i lose out on my personal life and they're out $15.&nbsp; that does wonders for morale.</FONT></P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P>&nbsp;</P>
    <P>I work 40 hours, and it seems that in that time I always get done what needs to be done. I haven't missed a deadline yet [;)]</P>
    <P>I have a very competent manager. When a project of a co-worker was threatening to go overdue he grabbed the nearest PC and jumped in helping with coding. And he also manages to manage our department very well.</P>
    <P>As for weaing a suit and tie to an interview. Never. I don't work wearing a suit and tie, so why should I wear one for the interview and give a false impression? I just go in casual (but neat) clothes.</P>
    <P>Drak</P>
  • Washier 2005-09-19 02:37
    <P><FONT color=#ff0000>Give the guy a break!!....</FONT></P>
    <P>He was conducting an interview for heavens-sake. The woman who irritated the guy was completely unprofessional and damn-right childish</P>
    <P>[&lt;:o)]</P>
  • pb.wtf 2005-09-19 03:12
    <P>Actually, I don't think that the CEO/CTO was wrong about the "sit down guy". We were interviewing recently and had lots of applicants who simply did not qualify the job in technical regard, many showed as little knowledge of the required technologies (and no potential to learn) as someone who *plans* to buy a book about the topic.</P>
    <P>Then there came a guy with an impressing knowledge of all required technologies, apparently experienced and he did not even ask for too much. Yet we did not hire him. Why? He was way too nervous. When he started the interview, he was so nervous that his body was shaking. Ok, some&nbsp;can't bear stress too well, so we started&nbsp;chatting about off topic things and the guy calmed down. Right. As we were discussing technology, he expressed his opinion so aggressively that he&nbsp;killed the topics multiple times. When we asked him about his previous job experience, he&nbsp;showed passionate hate to his previous employer and collegues, so we asked why he left and he told his boss found him 'incompatible'&nbsp;with any type of&nbsp;team work, which he found ridiculous. When we asked ourselves the question "do I want to work with this guy?", we immediately agreed on "no" and I think we made the right decision. Technical abilities are just one aspect of hiring. At a small company, you want to hire people who you can work with.</P>
  • CPound 2005-09-19 03:56
    pb.wtf:
    <p>He was way too nervous. When he started the
    interview, he was so nervous that his body was shaking. Ok,
    some&nbsp;can't bear stress too well, so we started&nbsp;chatting about
    off topic things and the guy calmed down. Right. As we were discussing
    technology, he expressed his opinion so aggressively that
    he&nbsp;killed the topics multiple times. When we asked him about his
    previous job experience, he&nbsp;showed passionate hate to his previous
    employer and collegues, so we asked why he left and he told his boss
    found him 'incompatible'&nbsp;with any type of&nbsp;team work, which he
    found ridiculous. <br>
    </p>
    <br>
    <br>
    He sounds like the type who "<span id="PostFlatView">might snap and mow down the building with automatic machine gun fire at any moment."</span>
  • pb.wtf 2005-09-19 04:35
    <P>
    CPound:
    <BR>He sounds like the type who "<SPAN id=PostFlatView>might snap and mow down the building with automatic machine gun fire at any moment."</SPAN>
    </P>
    <P>Frankly, he scared me a little.</P>
    <P>We ended up hiring nobody BTW. The best candidate took the job at another company and when the second best&nbsp;learned it (my fault, lesson&nbsp;learned), he raised his salary expectation by 50% and requested some extras, which just did not sound right. The third best... there was no such one. The third 'best' completed the test project (high-quality, teamwork-compatible code requested, one week time limit, supposed to be 2-4 hours of work) in some 100 lines. The code was full of cryptic variable names like "a", "i", "o", multiple statements per line, no comments,&nbsp;no whitespace at all, no error handling, failed to use thread synchronization, 64-bit integers and Unicode where it would have been needed. Uhm.</P>
  • SysRq2000 2005-09-19 05:44
    Yes, as long as he wouldn't&nbsp;have any customer relations... I mean, if the guy's a fantastic coder why would you care wheter or not he wears a tie? Just stick him in a corner office and let him do his stuff. Nah'mean?
  • brazzy 2005-09-19 06:07
    Richard Nixon:
    John:
    "Every IT company i have ever worked for, i've went
    along in my suit for the interview,"
    I've worked for a software company where, if you showed up in a tie,
    you were thanked for your time, and excused. So, it is not necessarily
    the safe choice.
    <br>
    <br>
    That's patently stupid. Someone shows up showing the proper amount of
    respect to show that they are taking the job seriously - and the
    company excuses them?<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    What the flying fuck does a piece of cloth have to do with respect and
    being serious? It's a convention in a certain part of corporate
    culture, that's all. It is also a convention for geek/hacker/tech people to despise tie-wearers as superficial and incompetent.<br>
  • Ben 2005-09-19 06:54
    <P>I think the "beavis and butthead" crack is hilarious. I've committed that to memory for future usage.</P>
    <P>Seriously though, CTO or not, being late to an interview is bad practice on behalf of the interviewee and interviewer. I wouldn't be late to an interview as either, and would apologise profusely if that was the case. Personally I wouldn't really use the beavis/butthead line, but I would think twice about a CTO that can't turn up at a given time and date and lacks a basic sense of humour. It's a basic personal management requirement to know what the time is and how to tell it (a seven year old can do it for God's sake).</P>
    <P>Personally I can't stand pretentious management, and don't enjoy working for their type. They're usually know nothing except for how to get ahead through corporate back-stabbing and director-cock-sucking.</P>
    <P>The fact that he let his secretary do his dirty work - disgusting. It is what he has been paid to do. I've had to sit there, knowing that the guy I have to fire has just had his first kid, but I did it, because it was my job and my responsibility. I didn't like doing it and it burned in my conscience, but that is business and what I was paid to do. It is one of the main reasons I enjoy not having to run my own business anymore.</P>
    <P>Personally, I would fire that CTO, based on the story and the facts given. It sounds like he is arrogant, can't manage his time and lets other people do the work he is paid to do. That is not the kind of person I would want to work for me, or with me for that matter. The candidate at least sounded interesting, and&nbsp;seemed to have a sense of humour (though&nbsp;comic timing is a bit off). A quick retort by the CTO, such as "both beavis and butthead seem to be you as this moment" would have been more appropriate in shutting the candidate up, and then seeing what his skills and personality really were like, would have been a better course of action.</P>
    <P>Regarding long working hours. Work to live, not the other way around. It's an old adage, but very true. People that work extremely long hours have relationship problems, health issues and eventually mental breakdowns. Go to work, enjoy&nbsp;it and&nbsp;socially interact with your peers, whilst learning and growing as a person. Remember you have children and a wife for God's sake, otherwise that other guy&nbsp;who isn't&nbsp;a slave like you,&nbsp;will start banging your&nbsp;wife whilst you're being a butthead and working too much. If you want to work 60 hours a week, then be my guest, but if I were you, skip the next 10 years of hard work and pain, go tell your wife that she might as well leave you now and screw the postman/milkman/poolman, tell your kids to hate you because you aren't going to spent any quality time with them whilst they grow up and check yourself into the nearest mental hospital and start banging your head against the wall. At least you'll have the breakdown and realisation without wasting ten years of your life. Perhaps I should call this the patented "Dr Ben - Wake up and smell the roses" method. Thoughts?</P>
    <P>Regarding the <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necktie">tie</A>. It is designed for one reason alone, and that is&nbsp;to give you the remote&nbsp;possibility of strangling yourself, and serves no purpose less to remind you of the corporate bondage you work for. I think like the suffragettes we should all burn our ties in protest. If somebody can please let me know what they are for, with the exception of strangulation, then please let me know. As with any job, being comfortable promotes a healthy, efficient, productive&nbsp;mind. We hear enough about ergonomics with regards to our&nbsp;seating position, so the fact we have a piece of material tight around our throats should be unergonomic enough to remove it, burn it and never wear it again.</P>
    <P>So, stand up and be counted! Exit your chair and your pen (sorry "cube"), and announce to your work colleagues and managers (bondage masters), in the name of unity and freedom that you will burn your tie,&nbsp;denounce its meaning and set yourself free. Then take a lighter and set fire to your tie, and throw it to the ground. Stamp on it and let all your anger you have inside for your boss, your work, your life drain out of you. You'll feel much better, probably get fired on the spot, but it will feel good.</P>
    <P>Personally, my opinion is that a person whom has&nbsp;never been fired at least once in their life hasn't lived. On that last point, I am genuinely serious - it builds character. However, if you have been fired more than once - you're a twat, and haven't learnt from the first time!</P>
  • jmo 2005-09-19 07:32
    <P>
    John:
    "Every IT company i have ever worked for, i've went along in my suit for the interview," I've worked for a software company where, if you showed up in a tie, you were thanked for your time, and excused. So, it is not necessarily the safe choice.
    </P>
    <P>Whats your point? Not exactly the norm though is it?</P>
    <P>Should I ask before the interview? most companies would say "suit" and think u a little daft for asking!</P>
  • csrster 2005-09-19 07:36
    Manni:
    <p>@Anonymous Coward: To play the devil's advocate,
    does that mean you're looking for a job where you can just barely skate
    by on an 8-hour workday? I'd like to see the place that hires a person
    who puts THAT on their resume.</p>
    <br>
    <br>
    Man, I love working in the (Danish) public sector. 37 hrs a week, and not a second more or less.<br>
  • jmo 2005-09-19 08:01
    Anonymous:
    Manni:

    <P>@Anonymous Coward: To play the devil's advocate, does that mean you're looking for a job where you can just barely skate by on an 8-hour workday? I'd like to see the place that hires a person who puts THAT on their resume.</P>
    <P>
    <BR><BR>Man, I love working in the (Danish) public sector. 37 hrs a week, and not a second more or less.<BR>
    </P>
    <P>UK public sector is less!! and more holidays (about 35 days off a year my mum gets as a secretary in the NHS, and she works part time!! WTF!!)</P>
  • Asd 2005-09-19 08:33
    "Unusual" handshakes are very common even among business men in some
    parts of Africa. Obviously not a company with overseas clients.<br>
  • Richard Nixon 2005-09-19 08:38
    brazzy:
    Richard Nixon:
    John:
    "Every IT company i have ever worked for, i've went
    along in my suit for the interview,"
    I've worked for a software company where, if you showed up in a tie,
    you were thanked for your time, and excused. So, it is not necessarily
    the safe choice.
    <br>
    <br>
    That's patently stupid. Someone shows up showing the proper amount of
    respect to show that they are taking the job seriously - and the
    company excuses them?<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    What the flying fuck does a piece of cloth have to do with respect and
    being serious? It's a convention in a certain part of corporate
    culture, that's all. It is also a convention for geek/hacker/tech people to despise tie-wearers as superficial and incompetent.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Yes, it's convention. It shows that you respect the company enough and
    are interested enough in the job that you will respect their
    convention, even if you don't like it.<br>
  • Richard Nixon 2005-09-19 08:40
    Omnifarious:
    CPound:
    What company was that? Were your chairs <span style="font-weight: bold;">bean bags</span> and did you use <span style="font-weight: bold;">power crystals</span> to channel your team's creative energies?
    <br>
    <p>Amazon is a little like that.&nbsp; Most companies in the
    Seattle area are, and Seattle still produces a whole bunch of software
    and has many profitable companies.&nbsp; Personally, you're making
    yourself sound like a bigot and stuffed shirt I'd be happy not to work
    near.</p>
    <br>
    <br>
    Dismissing people because they wear ties isn't being a bigot? Shut up.<br>
  • Enric Naval 2005-09-19 08:45
    <blockquote> user="Anonymous"]
    <P>Personally, my opinion is that a person whom has&nbsp;never been fired at least once in their life hasn't lived. On that last point, I am genuinely serious - it builds character. However, if you have been fired more than once - you're a twat, and haven't learnt from the first time!</P></blockquote>

    <p>I agree with what you say. This is specially instructive when you were about to tell them that you are leaving. </p>

    <p>You also learn to not go into places where you'll be fired because you won't fit there. Also, you may learn to leave before getting fired so you can say you bailed out by your own will. Quite useful skills :) </p>

  • Vidar 2005-09-19 09:02
    Anonymous:


    <p><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">I
    think it's quite common to give a technical test or at least a phone
    screen before formal interview. They don't want to waste their time
    either by interviewing unqualified candidates.</span><br>
    <br>
    </p>
    <p>I always use tests before talking to someone. Never anything
    complex, but something anyone suitable for the job should be able to
    quickly look over, see that they can do easily, and spend 15-20 minutes
    completing.<br>
    </p>
    <p>Last time I hired I saw almost everyone that produced anything
    resembling sensible answers (mostly in desperation - it took 6 months
    to find high enough quality people to two jobs that required skills
    with C++ and prerrably some experience with either of PHP or Perl) -
    I'm not picky about test results because I know that people don't want
    to spend ages on them, and it's often more valuable to talk about the
    results face to face<br>
    </p>
    <p>But each time we've used tests, even extremely basic ones, we save
    ourselves a lot of time. Last time, of around 30 or so candidates with
    CV's I looked at that seemed reasonable and that were given the tests,
    4 people had blatantly plagiarised online sources four their answers.
    And I'm not talking about looking up the answer online and writing it
    down in their own words. I'm talking cut and paste of (in one case)
    pages of documentation (some of it from an Oracle manual) when a single
    sentence would have been appropriate. In one case a candidate even cut
    and pasted a forum answer to a similar question that was corrected by
    someone else later in the same thread (the answer was complete and
    utter junk). I found all of them by cutting and pasting a line from
    their answers into Google.<br>
    </p>
    <p>I DON'T mind people looking up answers online, if they get it right,
    and if they use it to read up and give me an answer they've written
    themselves. I'd even have accepted several of those answers IF the
    candidate had told me "I didn't know the answer to this, so I looked it
    up, and according to ...., it's like this:" or just properly referenced
    their source. That shows initiative and integrity - I frequently look
    up things online when I work, and expect engineers working for me to do
    the same. I am more concerned about peoples overall skills than whether
    or not they happen to remember the answer t a specific question off by
    heart.<br>
    </p>
    <p>(as a digression, when hired for my current position I got the same
    set of tests that I frequently use myself, and a whole section of the
    test was on Perl. I just answered "I don't know enough Perl to answer
    these questions. I am willing to learn if it's needed for the job" or
    something along those lines. I know from talking to the manager that
    hired me afterwards that that answer was far more beneficial for me
    than if I'd have tried to fake my way through it)<br>
    </p>
    <p>Another 10 at least were unable to give any sensible answers as
    well. Only 5-6 candidates gave good answers, and we ended up hiring 3
    of them as my manager decided one of them fit in on another position
    that had become vacant in the meantime.</p>
    <p>I spoke to most of the ones with mediocre answers as well, and none
    of them would have been even remotely useful for our position.<br>
    </p>
    <p>The key to using tests successfully for screening is to make the
    initial tests very simple - you don't want to miss a good candidate
    because he's had a bad day or misread a question. You just want to get
    rid of the people that are trying you on in the hope of fooling you or
    that otherwise are applying for a job far above their skill level.<br>
    </p>
    <p>Would I talk to a candidate that refused to take a test? No. Before
    even deciding to give a candidate the chance to sit a test I will have
    spent far more time evaluating his or her's CV than they will spend on
    the test, and I know that I am interested. If they are not willing to
    invest that kind of time on the interview process with an employee that
    has shown interest in their CV, then I have NO reason to believe that
    they'll put in any level of effort if they're hired.<br>
    </p>
    <p>I don't expect long hours (I refuse to work them myself unless it's
    for a limited time and I'm appropriately awarded - my contract says 40
    hours minus lunch hours, and that is what my salary is based on. If
    they want me to work more they better pay me more) - but I do expect
    someone that is working efficiently during the time they are paid for,
    and that means being able to prove to me they are willing to put in the
    effort.<br>
    </p>
    <p>V<br>
    <br>
    </p>
  • Vidar 2005-09-19 09:12
    Anonymous:
    <p>I think it is insane..</p>
    <p> to not be able to manage a phone call and have someone lean on you.</p>
    <br>
    <br>
    Frankly, if I was sitting in a cubicle and ANYONE at ANY time just
    walked into it and leaned on me to look at something without first
    curteously asking if it was ok or if they were disturbing I'd be pissed
    off unless she was an amazing hottie and blatantly hitting on me...
    Intruding on someones personal space like that while they're obviously
    busy is to me a sign of complete disrespect.<br>
    <br>
    Even more so, if that someone ignores a blatant sign that I don't want
    them there by me pointing out that I am on the phone would really make
    me fume. I might not end up throwing stuff, but I would certainly be
    giving that person an earful afterwards if nothing else to make sure it
    never ever happens again.<br>
    <br>
    V<br>
    <br>
  • Satanicpuppy 2005-09-19 09:33
    Ytram:
    anon:
    Ytram:
    <span id="PostFlatView"><br>
    We're talking about a test that shouldn't take more than 15 or 20
    minutes.&nbsp; If you feel that's not worth your time, then I
    definitely wouldn't want you as an employee anyways.<br>
    </span>
    <br>
    <span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">Definitely </span>depends
    on the content of the test, I've been subjected to some pretty
    pointless (certification type) tests that probably provide no value to
    the employer.&nbsp; That said, I would hopefully know something about
    the company and be interested in the job prior to being there and would
    do a test if required.&nbsp; On the other hand if after the interview
    and I wasn't interested in the job I wouldn't hang around a do a
    test.&nbsp; Interviews after all are a two way street.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Yeah, this test was basically a "do you actually know .NET or did you
    just put it on your resume".&nbsp; It also had a little bit of "do you
    have problem solving skills" mixed in with it.&nbsp; It was still a
    challenging test, but not length at all.&nbsp; We're talking a single
    piece of paper, front side only.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    My problem with tests is syntax. If you start asking me syntax
    questions on a paper test, then I'll walk out. You know, I don't always
    keep the exact number of arguments that method can take in my head. It
    says a lot about an employer if they expect you to write syntactically
    correct code on a piece of paper.<br>
    <br>
    As me theory, logic, problem solving, and pseudo-code all you want. But
    if you're gonna run it through a compiler later, to hell with you.<br>
  • Magic Duck 2005-09-19 09:41
    <P>
    brazzy:
    <BR>What the flying fuck does a piece of cloth have to do with respect and being serious? It's a convention in a certain part of corporate culture, that's all. It is also a convention for geek/hacker/tech people to despise tie-wearers as superficial and incompetent.<BR>
    </P>
    <P>&nbsp;</P>
    <P>At least people with hacker/tech/geek background should know that one should not measure others by their clothing. Specially if suit is worn in job interview where one usually should dress a bit better than usually. Turning someone off just because he wears suit is incredebly stupid, I would never want to work under that kind of management.</P>
    <P>&nbsp;</P>
  • Mung Kee 2005-09-19 10:11
    Magic Duck:
    <p>
    brazzy:
    <br>What the flying
    fuck does a piece of cloth have to do with respect and being serious?
    It's a convention in a certain part of corporate culture, that's all.
    It is also a convention for geek/hacker/tech people to despise
    tie-wearers as superficial and incompetent.<br>
    </p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>At least people with hacker/tech/geek background should know that
    one should not measure others by their clothing. Specially if suit is
    worn in job interview where one usually should dress a bit better than
    usually. Turning someone off just because he wears suit is incredebly
    stupid, I would never want to work under that kind of management.</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <br>
    <br>
    Stupid especially because the candidate likely didn't want to be wearing the damn thing to begin with.<br>
  • dubwai 2005-09-19 10:20
    <P>
    Anonymous:
    <FONT size=3><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">@comment on "EEO? But he's Caucasian!"<BR><BR>Wow.<BR><BR>Apparently Caucasians can't be discriminated against?<BR></SPAN></FONT>
    </P>
    <P>Legally in the US?&nbsp; Yeah, pretty much.&nbsp; Not saying that is right or wrong but it's basically the case.</P>
  • emptyset 2005-09-19 10:40
    <P>
    Richard Nixon:
    Your opinion shows that your science background is quite lacking. I would not hire you on that basis alone. Stop posting.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>is that what the master's degree taught you as well?</FONT></P>
  • Buff 2005-09-19 10:52
    It seems to me that if you're going to an interview you want to look
    your best (it is proven that good-looking candidates have a better
    chance of being hired) and a guy in a nice suit certainly has a certain
    something over one in trousers and a polo shirt.. (OK.. so, tightish
    t-shirt and jeans they might look even better, but if I'm interviewing
    someone I'd prefer to be able to keep my thoughts on the subject at
    hand :P)<br>
    <br>
    You're trying to make a good first impression - and while I've been
    interviewed by barefoot people in shorts, it would take a huge amount
    of bravado to carry off turning up at an interview that way myself!<br>
    <br>
    As to tests - we use one where we sit someone down at a (pre-setup)
    computer, give them all the connection info they need, and tell them
    that in 20mins we'd like to be able to hit a page(servlet is
    acceptable) in a browser and get back the description column from the
    sports table that has Id 100. They can use the web to look up whatever
    they want, and we hang around (trying not to lurk too badly, while
    still keeping an eye on how they go about it) in case they have any
    questions about the tools available etc..<br>
    <br>
    It works really well.. 20 mins is about the right time for an
    experienced programmer - someone more junior would take 30 - but it's
    nice seeing them handling a keyboard (it's surprising how many people
    say they're programmers, then hunt and peck!)&nbsp; noting good
    variable name habits, how they go about researching on the web etc..<br>
    <br>
    A bad result on the test doesn't mean we wouldn't hire them - but it
    also gives us something to explore later on in the other parts of the
    interview.. Also, we wouldn't give them the test without talking to
    them for a bit, getting them relaxed enough that they'd ask questions
    if they had them etc... turning up and going straight into a written
    test for a programming job just isn't ideal from either person's side..<br>
  • hank miller 2005-09-19 11:15
    Let me get this straight.&nbsp;&nbsp; They brought this random guy off
    the street, and took him into a room where all the companies top
    seceret plans where on a whiteboard?&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There are
    companies (not ethical ones, but they exist) who on finding that out
    will hire someone to get an interview, and then memorise the whiteboard
    before erasing it.&nbsp;&nbsp; Then they (the compitition) knows the
    seceret plans, and the creaters don't.<br>
    <br>
    I agree that he should have asked before erasing, but there is no
    excuse for anything important to be on the board to begin with.<br>
    <br>
    As for B&amp;B: I wouldn't have gone red in the face, but the interview
    would have been over.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I know I'm an over sensitive
    christian, but I like it that way.&nbsp;&nbsp; People swear all the
    time, but not around me - I have made it clear that it isn't
    acceptable, and they have learned to respect that if they want to
    communicate with me.&nbsp; (Once you set the example people tend to
    follow along, so normally I don't have to say anything, just refuse to
    swear a few times when everyone else is, and they will get
    uncomfortable and stop.&nbsp; Subtile but it works)&nbsp;&nbsp; An
    interview is unknown enough that you start off on your best behavior,
    and only change after it is proven that the others are fine with
    it.&nbsp; <br>
    <br>
    Thus for a first interview you wear the suit and tie.&nbsp; When (as
    most places are) you see that it isn't required, for the second
    interview you drop to something more casual.&nbsp;&nbsp; (always just
    slightly above them, because the boss might notice)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
    Language can be adjusted in real time - if everyone else is making
    B&amp;B jokes, you are safe to make a few yourself, but don't start
    them, and don't use the more crude ones.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>
    <br>
    If you are not comfortable with the level of language or dress they
    set, then don't take the job.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Their job is to set the
    tone of the interview to be much like the day to day office, so if you
    are not comfortable with their tone, you won't like the job.<br>
  • Richard Nixon 2005-09-19 11:21
    emptyset:
    <p>
    Richard Nixon:
    Your opinion
    shows that your science background is quite lacking. I would not hire
    you on that basis alone. Stop posting.
    </p>
    <p><font face="Courier New" size="2">is that what the master's degree taught you as well?</font></p>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Common sense tells me that. Any other questions?<br>
  • DeusEx 2005-09-19 11:34
    Anonymous:
    We had a friend that would go to new clients wearing a jean t-shirt and no
    shoes.&nbsp; The fact of the matter is that he is till today the only person
    that I have seen that took a C manual without knowing the language - scanned it
    for 30 minutes and had a windowing system going on the same day (back in good
    old DOS days).
    <br>
    <br>
    I think this is the crux of the discussion.<br>
    <br>
    When seeking employment, there are some of us (like this person) who
    are skilled enough (and live in a tech economy that will support them)
    to be able to choose where they want to work. Their skills speak for
    themselves, and they have the luxury of deciding which company they
    will grace with their presence -- and it can be one that will cater to
    their quirks.<br>
    <br>
    The rest of us don't necessarily have that ability. Be it less skill,
    less job availability, or other considerations (family, social life,
    etc), we are more limited in job hunting, and thus must try our best to
    make the employer select us instead of other candidates for the
    position.<br>
    <br>
    (Somewhere there's a law of supply and demand at work.)<br>
    <br>
    To those who have replied to this thread with comments like, "I would
    NEVER work for a company that said/did X, Y, or Z in an interview,"
    then my congratulations on being in that elite first group. However, as
    someone in that second group, I will continue to put on a tie, shake
    hands, and maintain a courteous and professional demeanor when I
    interview. I don't consider it "selling out" as much as it is "selling
    myself".<br>
  • dubwai 2005-09-19 11:42
    <P>
    brazzy:
    Richard Nixon:
    John:
    "Every IT company i have ever worked for, i've went along in my suit for the interview," I've worked for a software company where, if you showed up in a tie, you were thanked for your time, and excused. So, it is not necessarily the safe choice.
    <BR><BR>That's patently stupid. Someone shows up showing the proper amount of respect to show that they are taking the job seriously - and the company excuses them?<BR>
    <BR><BR>What the flying fuck does a piece of cloth have to do with respect and being serious? It's a convention in a certain part of corporate culture, that's all. It is also a convention for geek/hacker/tech people to despise tie-wearers as superficial and incompetent.<BR>
    </P>
    <P>Right or wrong, showing up dressed in a suit and tie shows respect to the potential employer.&nbsp; Showing up in shorts and flip-flop&nbsp;makes a&nbsp;candidate&nbsp;appear to&nbsp;believe himself or herself to be&nbsp;too important to bother making a good impression.</P>
    <P>My personal experience is that candidates who have an inflated sense of importance (e.g. most Harvard grads) can't be bothered to do any unpleasant work or stay late when the team is in a jam.</P>
  • Otto 2005-09-19 11:58
    <P>Heh. I'll wear a tie for an interview. But I always take note of whether the other people there are wearing&nbsp;ties or not, and if they are, well, I won't be working there. :)</P>
    <P>&nbsp;</P>
  • Not Registered 2005-09-19 12:05
    <P>All of the people mention in this WTF have one thing in common, they are idiots.&nbsp; Each one of them </P>
    <OL>
    <LI>Are unemployed because they are an idiot, or </LI>
    <LI>They are trying to get a new job before the boss fires them at a current job.</LI></OL>
    <P>A good indication of a persons idiot factor is the number of jobs they have had over the past 5 years. (exclude consultants from this test)&nbsp; If they have had more than 3+ jobs in 5 years, phone screen them. If they can't provide acceptable* reasons for each of the jumps move on.</P>
    <P>(*Acceptable varies with Corporate Culture of the hiring firm)</P>
  • anon 2005-09-19 12:08
    <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Nothing wrong with technical tests given before during or after face-to-face interviews. I personally prefer technical test/interview or a phone screen to a formal HR interview, the kind where they ask you “Where do you see yourself in 5 years?”, “Are you a team player?” and “What kind of tree/animal would you be?” (yes, I was actually asked that once by an HR person). </P>
    <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">On the other hand, it also depends who’s conducting a tech interview. I had a phone screen where it was clear that the guy had no idea what he was talking about, it was obvious that he read questions from piece of paper and looked up the answers, and if my answers didn’t match exactly with what’s written down on his piece of paper, it was no good for him. </P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">Also you got to love when your ability to think logically and program is measured by “number of users in the system X you developed” or “Number of ASPX pages”. I was interviewed for a web developer position, so a hiring manager asked me those questions; number of users and pages. Towards the end of that interview, I felt that he wasn’t impressed, so I suggested that I would be willing to take a technical test if he has any doubts about my qualifications. He replied that it wont be necessary since I don’t have experience working with “large-scale systems” with X number of users and X numbers of pages…. </SPAN>
  • UncleMidriff 2005-09-19 12:21
    Otto:

    <p>Heh. I'll wear a tie for an interview. But I always take note of
    whether the other people there are wearing&nbsp;ties or not, and if
    they are, well, I won't be working there. :)
    <br>
    </p>
    <p>I showed up at the interview for my current job in a full suit and
    tie, and I plan to do so for any interview in the future unless
    explicitly told otherwise.&nbsp; I even showed up for my first day on
    the job in a suit and tie.&nbsp; When my coworkers half jokingly told
    me, 'Take that crap off, you're making us look bad," I knew it'd
    probably be ok to tone it down just a bit.<br>
    </p>
    <p>I really don't understand the strong aversion most people seem to
    have to wearing a uniform.&nbsp; When working for a fast-food joint,
    you're going to have to wear something resembling a clown suit.&nbsp;
    If you work for UPS, you wear brown.&nbsp; That's just how it is.&nbsp;
    At least at most jobs in which programmers are interested the "uniform"
    is wearable in other settings.<br>
    </p>
    <p>To those who refuse to dress up: are y'all's (double contraction++)
    necks really so sensitive that it pains you unbearably to wear a
    tie?&nbsp; Are your identities really so tied to your goddamn <span style="font-style: italic;">clothing</span> that to dress up because you're required to do so by your employer constitutes "selling out?"</p>
  • anon 2005-09-19 12:23
    Not Registered:

    <P>All of the people mention in this WTF have one thing in common, they are idiots.&nbsp; Each one of them </P>
    <OL>
    <LI>Are unemployed because they are an idiot, or
    <LI>They are trying to get a new job before the boss fires them at a current job.</LI></OL>
    <P>A good indication of a persons idiot factor is the number of jobs they have had over the past 5 years. (exclude consultants from this test)&nbsp; If they have had more than 3+ jobs in 5 years, phone screen them. If they can't provide acceptable* reasons for each of the jumps move on.</P>
    <P>(*Acceptable varies with Corporate Culture of the hiring firm)</P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P>Having 3+ jobs in 5 years is indicative of nothing. People get laid off, relocate, get sick, injured, short term dissability, divorce their boss' daughter, whatever. Not all the answers might be acceptable to you, but it doesn't mean that a person with 3+ jobs in 5 years is not a qualified candidate, it definitely doesn’t mean&nbsp;an idiot.</P>
    <P>Also your arguement can easily be turned around;&nbsp;&nbsp;a person that stayed in one place&nbsp;for 5 years is lacking motivation, not ambitious, not a risk taker,&nbsp;etc., therefore is an idiot.</P>
    <P>&nbsp;</P>
  • Scaredy Cat 2005-09-19 12:27
    Anonymous:

    <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">“What kind of tree/animal would you be?”</P>
    <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">
    </P>
    <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</P>
    <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">I would be a bannana tree...for obvious reasons.</P>
  • Mike R 2005-09-19 12:36
    Crunchy:
    My favorite comment in an interview (I was the candidate):<br>
    <br>
    (It's about 15 minutes into the interview at this point)<br>
    Interviewer: So, when I get stressed out I just go out to my car and smoke a joint.&nbsp; Ya know!<br>
    Me: Umm..... <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Was the interviewer's initials S.B. ?<br>
    <br>
    Seriously, I worked for a brief time for a guy who was pot-obsessed. <br>
  • emptyset 2005-09-19 12:45
    <P>
    UncleMidriff:
    To those who refuse to dress up: are y'all's (double contraction++) necks really so sensitive that it pains you unbearably to wear a tie?&nbsp; Are your identities really so tied to your goddamn <SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic">clothing</SPAN> that to dress up because you're required to do so by your employer constitutes "selling out?"
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>it's more of an issue of comfort.&nbsp; a comfortable programmer is more productive, simply because being uncomfortable is a form of distraction.</FONT></P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>i find dress codes silly in this field because a developer does not often interact with a customer.&nbsp; it's an abstraction of duty, and i think the sales people should wear their suits when they go out to represent the company to be taken seriously.&nbsp; why should a programmer have to do this when their concerns are making a compiler/the design/the program happy?&nbsp;&nbsp;the compiler&nbsp;doesn't care if you code naked!</FONT></P>
  • UncleMidriff 2005-09-19 13:13
    emptyset:
    <p>
    UncleMidriff:
    To those who
    refuse to dress up: are y'all's (double contraction++) necks really so
    sensitive that it pains you unbearably to wear a tie?&nbsp; Are your
    identities really so tied to your goddamn <span style="font-style: italic;">clothing</span> that to dress up because you're required to do so by your employer constitutes "selling out?"
    </p>
    <p><font face="Courier New" size="2">it's more of an issue of
    comfort.&nbsp; a comfortable programmer is more productive, simply
    because being uncomfortable is a form of distraction.</font></p>
    <p><font face="Courier New" size="2">i find dress codes silly in this
    field because a developer does not often interact with a
    customer.&nbsp; it's an abstraction of duty, and i think the sales
    people should wear their suits when they go out to represent the
    company to be taken seriously.&nbsp; why should a programmer have to do
    this when their concerns are making a compiler/the design/the program
    happy?&nbsp;&nbsp;the compiler&nbsp;doesn't care if you code naked!</font></p>
    <br>
    <br>
    But, apparently, my coworkers do, unfortunately...;)<br>
    <br>
    I agree with you that it's nice to be more comfortable, and that
    comfortable people probably work more efficiently.&nbsp; But as for
    myself I have never found dressing up to be <span style="font-style: italic;">that </span>uncomfortable.<br>
    <br>
    And I certainly agree that attire isn't really all that important,
    especially for programmers who never see the light of day much less a
    customer.&nbsp; But that's just it; attire is <span style="font-style: italic;">unimportant</span>
    to me.&nbsp; If my employers requires me to wear a tie, I'll wear a
    tie, even though I might agree with somoeone who says it's silly.&nbsp;
    If the employer wants me to wear a t-shirt and jeans, I'll wear a
    t-shirt and jeans.&nbsp; If the employer wants me to wear a tutu, I'll
    wear a tu...ok, maybe not.<br>
  • cowardly dragon 2005-09-19 13:17
    Agreed. <br>
    <br>
    I actually think the candidate got the better end of the deal in "Sit
    Down" - he didn't get hired by an obviously egomaniacal, moody,
    unpredictable CTO/President/Sysadmin boss. And the toady factor of the
    other dude is pretty glaring. If you want to hire a talented lead
    programmer, they will get excited about what they design and what to
    show it. But I think this guy just wants yes-men lapdogs.<br>
  • Gene Wirchenko 2005-09-19 13:27
    UncleMidriff:
    I really don't understand the strong aversion most people seem to
    have to wearing a uniform.&nbsp; When working for a fast-food joint,
    you're going to have to wear something resembling a clown suit.&nbsp;
    If you work for UPS, you wear brown.&nbsp; That's just how it is.&nbsp;
    At least at most jobs in which programmers are interested the "uniform"
    is wearable in other settings.
    <br>
    <br>
    It is uncomfortable for me.&nbsp; See below.<br>


    <p>
    To those who refuse to dress up: are y'all's (double contraction++)
    necks really so sensitive that it pains you unbearably to wear a
    tie?&nbsp; Are your identities really so tied to your goddamn <span style="font-style: italic;">clothing</span> that to dress up because you're required to do so by your employer constitutes "selling out?"
    <br>
    </p>
    <p>Well, I have a large neck.&nbsp; I would have to buy tailored shirts
    in order to wear a tie.&nbsp; Since I am heat-sensitive, the last thing
    that I want to wear is something that holds heat in, which a tie
    does.&nbsp; I could not sensibly wear a tie elsewhere.&nbsp; Besdies,
    the silly thing flips onto the listings.<br>
    </p>
    <p>I wear sandals because of the way my feet are built.<br>
    </p>
    <p>I dress the way I do for health reasons.<br>
    </p>
    <p>Sincerely,<br>
    </p>
    <p>Gene Wirchenko<br>
    <br>
    </p>
  • Mikey 2005-09-19 13:28
    Anonymous:

    <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">I would be a bannana tree...for obvious reasons.
    </P>
    <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</P>
    <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">@Scaredy Cat...you're sick and need to seek professional help.</P>
    <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</P>
    <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">But seriously, I thought about that animal/tree question and it's very disturbing.</P>
    <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</P>
    <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">You can take any animal or tree and it will inevitably end up being a sick/perverted/psychotic response. Think about a horse, sheep, or oyster.</P>
    <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</P>
    <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">And if it's not perverted and disgusting, it has a negative connotation. Think about a turtle, ape, or venus fly trap.</P>
    <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</P>
    <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Either way, you look bad.</P>
    <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;</P>
    <P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">I think the question is stupid.</P>
  • Mike R 2005-09-19 13:41
    Anonymous:
    <p>Also your arguement can easily be turned
    around;&nbsp;&nbsp;a person that stayed in one place&nbsp;for 5 years
    is lacking motivation, not ambitious, not a risk taker,&nbsp;etc.,
    therefore is an idiot.</p>
    <br>
    <br>
    Gee, Thanks. <br>
    <br>
    I'm an idiot simply because I'd rather be loyal to the company I work
    for, rather than bounce from job to job, leaving past employers in the
    lurch. I'd much rather hire someone who has worked several years for
    one company, than worked 3 or more jobs in a 5 year time span, just
    simply because I don't want to waste time and resources interviewing
    new candidates when they flit to their next job. <br>
    <br>
    <br>
  • cowardly dragon 2005-09-19 13:41
    Well, we now know about CPound:<br>
    <br>
    1) his company is actively outsourcing<br>
    2) his company loves to wear suits and judge talent on the basis of suits<br>
    3) he loves to use annoying boldings<br>
    4) his insecurity is practically stamped in red over his postings.<br>
    5) is obsessed with the facade of professionalism over the stink of competency and talent<br>
    <br>
    If this were the 90s, I would guarantee he worked at a big-six consulting firm. Still a pretty good chance he does.<br>
    <br>
    Dude, if you're just doing Seibel installs or SAP, and you just need
    monkeys to write awful code and lots of 10-inch-thick books of
    pointlessly printed requirements, you don't need and won't get anyone
    of talent. You're just installing package software.<br>
    <br>
    If you're doing serious software development, you need geniuses and talent. Geniuses are a little quirky.<br>
  • CPound 2005-09-19 13:48
    <P>
    Anonymous:
    Well, we now know about CPound:<BR>1) his company is actively outsourcing<BR>2) his company loves to wear suits and judge talent on the basis of suits<BR>3) he loves to use annoying boldings<BR>4) his insecurity is practically stamped in red over his postings.<BR>5) is obsessed with the facade of professionalism over the stink of competency and talent<BR>
    </P>
    <OL>
    <LI>Not true.</LI>
    <LI>Er...true.</LI>
    <LI>True.</LI>
    <LI>Sad, but true.</LI>
    <LI>Very true!</LI></OL>
  • Not Registered 2005-09-19 13:53
    Anonymous:
    Not Registered:

    <P>All of the people mention in this WTF have one thing in common, they are idiots.&nbsp; Each one of them </P>
    <OL>
    <LI>Are unemployed because they are an idiot, or
    <LI>They are trying to get a new job before the boss fires them at a current job.</LI></OL>
    <P>A good indication of a persons idiot factor is the number of jobs they have had over the past 5 years. (exclude consultants from this test)&nbsp; If they have had more than 3+ jobs in 5 years, phone screen them. If they can't provide acceptable* reasons for each of the jumps move on.</P>
    <P>(*Acceptable varies with Corporate Culture of the hiring firm)</P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P>Having 3+ jobs in 5 years is indicative of nothing. People get laid off, relocate, get sick, injured, short term dissability, divorce their boss' daughter, whatever. Not all the answers might be acceptable to you, but it doesn't mean that a person with 3+ jobs in 5 years is not a qualified candidate, it definitely doesn’t mean&nbsp;an idiot.</P>
    <P>Also your arguement can easily be turned around;&nbsp;&nbsp;a person that stayed in one place&nbsp;for 5 years is lacking motivation, not ambitious, not a risk taker,&nbsp;etc., therefore is an idiot.</P>
    <P>&nbsp;</P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P>Did you not read the asterix?&nbsp; A Wallstreet Financial company and a start up in Seatle would have a different set of acceptable reason.&nbsp;</P>
    <P>Eveyone of the items you mentioned is a valid reason for changing positions.&nbsp; I also would consider acceptable: missionary trips, caring for a relative, long commute, can't handle the&nbsp;travel anymore,&nbsp;family tragedy, old technology and even backpacking europe because they needed a break.&nbsp; The list goes on...</P>
    <P>But having 3 bosses that "hated me", no explaination, or switching jobs 3 times for better pay are warning flags.&nbsp;&nbsp;It should be obvious these items are warning signs:</P>
    <OL>
    <LI>"3 bosses that hated me"... are <U><STRONG>indicators</STRONG></U> that the person is a bad judge of character when interviewing, or&nbsp; they have a problem getting along with people. (You need to get solid references on this guy)</LI>
    <LI>No explaination... I can't see how this isn't a warning flag.. The guy is an IDIOT if he can't provide (or makeup) valid reasons for a jump.</LI>
    <LI>Switching jobs every 8 to 12 months for salary increases... why would you expect that the person would not quit as soon as they get a better offer.</LI>
    <LI>Unable to offer a 2 week notice?&nbsp; Who wants a person that will walk out without a transition of duties/knowlegde. The fact is that most companies don't make you stay the 2 weeks.</LI></OL>
    <P>Your "reverse" argument is non sequitur...&nbsp; my comments merely show warning signs for job hopping.&nbsp;&nbsp;But if you want a true comparision it would be the following:</P>
    <P>The person has not experienced any adversity or pressing reason to leave their current position. (AKA loyalty)</P>
    <P>The person has a valid reason for seeking new employment</P>
    <P>The person feels that they have been fairly compensated by their company.</P>
    <P>The person feels that it is important to&nbsp;minimize the disruption of&nbsp; leaving by providing the customary 2 weeks. OR the person is willing to help in the transition so they do not burn a bridge.&nbsp; </P>
    <P>I would say that person with these traits is&nbsp;someone who should be carefully examined.</P>
  • Mike R 2005-09-19 13:55
    CPound:
    <br>
    <br>
    4. Sad, but true.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Can't be. Someone insecure as that wouldn't reply true to 4 out of 5 things.&nbsp; :)<br>
  • Not Registered 2005-09-19 14:01
    <P>
    Not Registered:
    </P>
    <P>But having 3 bosses that "hated me", no explaination, or switching jobs 3 times for better pay are warning flags.&nbsp;&nbsp;It should be obvious these items are warning signs:</P>
    <OL>
    <LI>"3 bosses that hated me"... are <U><STRONG>indicators</STRONG></U> that the person is a bad judge of character when interviewing, or&nbsp; they have a problem getting along with people. (You need to get solid references on this guy)
    <LI>No explaination... I can't see how this isn't a warning flag.. The guy is an IDIOT if he can't provide (or makeup) valid reasons for a jump.
    <LI>Switching jobs every 8 to 12 months for salary increases... why would you expect that the person would not quit as soon as they get a better offer.
    <LI>Unable to offer a 2 week notice?&nbsp; Who wants a person that will walk out without a transition of duties/knowlegde. The fact is that most companies don't make you stay the 2 weeks.</LI></OL>
    <P>Your "reverse" argument is non sequitur...&nbsp; my comments merely show warning signs for job hopping.&nbsp;&nbsp;But if you want a true comparision it would be the following:</P>
    <P>The person has not experienced any adversity or pressing reason to leave their current position. (AKA loyalty)</P>
    <P>The person has a valid reason for seeking new employment</P>
    <P>The person feels that they have been fairly compensated by their company.</P>
    <P>The person feels that it is important to&nbsp;minimize the disruption of&nbsp; leaving by providing the customary 2 weeks. OR the person is willing to help in the transition so they do not burn a bridge.&nbsp; </P>
    <P>I would say that person with these traits is&nbsp;someone who should be carefully examined.</P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P>#4 is worded incorrectly, and I would pull that from list... (some bosses are A-holes and 2 more weeks may not be worth it...)</P>
  • Otto 2005-09-19 14:06
    <P>
    UncleMidriff:
    I really don't understand the strong aversion most people seem to have to wearing a uniform.&nbsp; When working for a fast-food joint, you're going to have to wear something resembling a clown suit.&nbsp; If you work for UPS, you wear brown.&nbsp; That's just how it is.&nbsp; At least at most jobs in which programmers are interested the "uniform" is wearable in other settings.
    </P>
    <P>Agreed, however I don't work at a fast-food joint (and never have). I don't work for UPS. I'm not doing a job where I interact with the public or clients or any other blamed thing. I'm a programmer. I sit behind a keyboard for 8 hours a day. Expecting me to get decked out to sit in a chair for 8 hours is unreasonable.</P>
    <P>My current employer requires slacks and a collared shirt. Fine. I can deal with that. I'd prefer jeans, but hey, BFD.</P>
    <P>
    UncleMidriff:
    To those who refuse to dress up: are y'all's (double contraction++) necks really so sensitive that it pains you unbearably to wear a tie?&nbsp; Are your identities really so tied to your goddamn <SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic">clothing</SPAN> that to dress up because you're required to do so by your employer constitutes "selling out?"
    </P>
    <P>It's not about "selling out". It's about respect. I can't work for somebody that I don't respect and who doesn't respect me. If somebody sets insane guidelines for dress code and such, then they're not respecting my abilities since they think I'm incapable&nbsp;of dressing myself, and&nbsp;I've lost respect for them for setting such insane policies. In either case,&nbsp;I cannot work for them.</P>
  • Eric the .5n 2005-09-19 14:06
    "While we were waiting, there was no idle chit-chat or talk wih the candidate. He was just sitting there with this really goofy look on his face. I remember thinking to myself that he was way too relaxed. After all, this was a senior programming position he was interviewing for. This was not just another random interview."

    I read this, and I wonder - was the Beavis and Butthead guy just stoned?
  • Richard Nixon 2005-09-19 14:22
    Otto:
    It's not about "selling out". It's about respect. I can't work for
    somebody that I don't respect and who doesn't respect me. If somebody
    sets insane guidelines for dress code and such, then they're not
    respecting my abilities since they think I'm incapable&nbsp;of dressing
    myself, and&nbsp;I've lost respect for them for setting such insane
    policies. In either case,&nbsp;I cannot work for them.
    <br>
    <br>
    But wasn't this discussion about interview attire - not day to day working attire?<br>
  • cowardly dragon 2005-09-19 14:26
    Curse your neo-90s psycho-introspection defense field. It has rendered my attacks benign.<br>
  • anon 2005-09-19 14:40
    Not Registered:

    <P>&nbsp;</P>
    <P>Did you not read the asterix?&nbsp; A Wallstreet Financial company and a start up in Seatle would have a different set of acceptable reason.&nbsp;</P>
    <P>Eveyone of the items you mentioned is a valid reason for changing positions.&nbsp; I also would consider acceptable: missionary trips, caring for a relative, long commute, can't handle the&nbsp;travel anymore,&nbsp;family tragedy, old technology and even backpacking europe because they needed a break.&nbsp; The list goes on...</P>
    <P>But having 3 bosses that "hated me", no explaination, or switching jobs 3 times for better pay are warning flags.&nbsp;&nbsp;It should be obvious these items are warning signs:</P>
    <OL>
    <LI>"3 bosses that hated me"... are <U><STRONG>indicators</STRONG></U> that the person is a bad judge of character when interviewing, or&nbsp; they have a problem getting along with people. (You need to get solid references on this guy)
    <LI>No explaination... I can't see how this isn't a warning flag.. The guy is an IDIOT if he can't provide (or makeup) valid reasons for a jump.
    <LI>Switching jobs every 8 to 12 months for salary increases... why would you expect that the person would not quit as soon as they get a better offer.
    <LI>Unable to offer a 2 week notice?&nbsp; Who wants a person that will walk out without a transition of duties/knowlegde. The fact is that most companies don't make you stay the 2 weeks.</LI></OL>
    <P>Your "reverse" argument is non sequitur...&nbsp; my comments merely show warning signs for job hopping.&nbsp;&nbsp;But if you want a true comparision it would be the following:</P>
    <P>The person has not experienced any adversity or pressing reason to leave their current position. (AKA loyalty)</P>
    <P>The person has a valid reason for seeking new employment</P>
    <P>The person feels that they have been fairly compensated by their company.</P>
    <P>The person feels that it is important to&nbsp;minimize the disruption of&nbsp; leaving by providing the customary 2 weeks. OR the person is willing to help in the transition so they do not burn a bridge.&nbsp; </P>
    <P>I would say that person with these traits is&nbsp;someone who should be carefully examined.</P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">So, it’s just a matter of <STRIKE>having</STRIKE> inventing culturally acceptable <STRIKE>excuses</STRIKE> reasons? </SPAN></P>
  • Otto 2005-09-19 14:43
    <P>
    Richard Nixon:
    But wasn't this discussion about interview attire - not day to day working attire?
    </P>
    <P>Like I said in the first place, I'll dress up for an interview, but if everybody else I see is dressed up too, I won't be working there. :)</P>
    <P>&nbsp;</P>
  • bugsRus 2005-09-19 14:53
    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:

    <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">“What kind of tree/animal would you be?”</p>
    <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
    </p>
    <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
    <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">I would be a bannana tree...for obvious reasons.</p>
    <br>
    <br>
    That's just wrong!<br>
    <br>
    http://botany.cs.tamu.edu/FLORA/pic1/nanners.jpg<br>
    <br>
    <br>
  • quamaretto 2005-09-19 14:57
    <BLOCKQUOTE>You can take any animal or tree and it will inevitably end up being a sick/perverted/psychotic response. Think about a horse, sheep, or oyster. </BLOCKQUOTE>
    <BLOCKQUOTE>And if it's not perverted and disgusting, it has a negative connotation. Think about a turtle, ape, or venus fly trap. </BLOCKQUOTE>
    <P>I thought of an answer to this one: Cockroach. Think about it. Cockroaches can eat anything and survive nuclear fallout.&nbsp;If you and I are cockroaches, well, all we have to do is trick the humans into annihilating each other with nuclear weapons and we have the whole (previously) civilized world to ourselves.</P>
    <P>Maybe that sort of response was the point of the test. Oops.[^o)]</P>
  • emptyset 2005-09-19 15:03
    <P>
    Gene Wirchenko:
    I dress the way I do for health reasons.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>while we're on the topic of silly employee mandates, why do we as a society continue to&nbsp;work in the [8-9]-[5-6]?&nbsp; although some programming jobs offer flexible hours (with the obvious common time set aside for team interaction), there's still too many places of employment that work in this schedule.&nbsp; and it's completely retarded.</FONT></P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>why can't i&nbsp;meet with&nbsp;a lawyer or a doctor for an appointment at 9 pm?&nbsp; why can't i get non-trivial service (&gt; 2hrs) on my car past 5 pm?&nbsp; we'd all have less traffic problems, too.&nbsp; and you can't go to court, DMVs, and other civil things any other time except right in the middle of your work day.&nbsp; it's really stupid.</FONT></P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>great programming work&nbsp;knows not the clock.&nbsp; the status quo of society's work hours is anathema to those of us with sleep disorders.&nbsp; i feel left out from this great joy people find in getting stuck in traffic, having to miss work because of appointments that can't be scheduled at any other time, and having to buy groceries and other essentials when everybody else is buying them.</FONT></P>
  • ftp 2005-09-19 15:13
    Good stuff.  :)<br>
    <br>
    I'd run away from a job where the president is showing off non-crunch
    mandatory weekend overtime as well.  It's one thing to put in
    extra hours to get the project done, and it's another when working
    unpaid evenings and weekends isn't considered extra hours.<br>
    <br>
    I've never had a problem asking the hiring manager (or whichever PR
    person first contacts me) what appropriate interview attire is. 
    I've been told quite a few times not to show up in a tie, which is
    always a relief because it makes me more nervous.<br>
  • Schroeder 2005-09-19 15:18
    <P>Getting back to the 60-70 hour work week... the way I see it is that lawyers and doctors generally work that many hours and I sure as hell am not making as much as they are.&nbsp; So until I'm pulling down more than $200K, I'll stick to my current hours.</P>
    <P>When I started this job, the big boss-man indicated that this "isn't a 9 to 5 job".&nbsp; Regrettably, I didn't ask him to clarify what he meant by that.&nbsp; When I interview people and mention that, I mean that I'm not looking for someone who's going to show up 9 and then drop everything they're doing at five on the dot and head out for the day.&nbsp; What he meant is that the average person is working well over 10 hours a day and then fixing all the broken stuff in the middle of the night.</P>
    <P>I work about 9 hours a day (usually more)&nbsp;and usually don't spend more than 15 minutes on lunch.&nbsp; Aside from reading this forum, I'm pretty focused on my job too.&nbsp; So that's a good 45 hour work week.&nbsp; I'm comfortable with that in terms of the balance between my life and work.&nbsp; I know that come review time, that probably won't be good enough for this company, but that's all I'm willing to give based on my current salary and commitments outside of work (i.e. my wife).</P>
    <P>The interesting thing to note is why everyone is working so many hours each week.&nbsp; Are we being productive and creating all kinds of cool software?&nbsp; NO!&nbsp; We're barely keeping our heads above the water fixing problems with existing applications.&nbsp; I've found this in every job I've worked.&nbsp; The guys who were working 40-50 hours were the ones who had their act together and were getting things done effectively.&nbsp; The guys who were working 50+ hours were the one with poorly managed projects who were reacting to problems rather than planning solutions.</P>
  • Donnie 2005-09-19 15:22
    <P>Regarding the "what animal would you be?" question...</P>
    <P>I would be an angry cat, with sharp claws to scratch the interviewer's face.</P>
  • Richard Nixon 2005-09-19 15:45
    Otto:
    <p>
    Richard Nixon:
    But wasn't this discussion about interview attire - not day to day working attire?
    </p>
    <p>Like I said in the first place, I'll dress up for an interview, but
    if everybody else I see is dressed up too, I won't be working there. :)</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <br>
    <br>
    Yes, it's unfortunate that "emptyset" replied to someone who was
    discussing attire for an interview with a comment about attire for
    day-to-day work, as if that was refuting the statement.<br>
  • emptyset 2005-09-19 15:45
    <P>
    Schroeder:
    The guys who were working 40-50 hours were the ones who had their act together and were getting things done effectively.&nbsp; The guys who were working 50+ hours were the one with poorly managed projects who were reacting to problems rather than planning solutions.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>yeah, maintaining old code is annoying.&nbsp; bleh.&nbsp; it is not the life for me.</FONT></P>
  • Sam 2005-09-19 15:46
    <P>RE: What animal would you be?</P>
    <P>I would throw the interviewer completely off by saying I would be a <STRONG>food</STRONG>.</P>
    <P>I would say I would be a taco, because they come in both soft and crunchy varieties.</P>
  • Not Registered 2005-09-19 15:54
    Anonymous:
    Not Registered:

    <P>&nbsp;</P>
    <P>Did you not read the asterix?&nbsp; A Wallstreet Financial company and a start up in Seatle would have a different set of acceptable reason.&nbsp;</P>
    <P>Eveyone of the items you mentioned is a valid reason for changing positions.&nbsp; I also would consider acceptable: missionary trips, caring for a relative, long commute, can't handle the&nbsp;travel anymore,&nbsp;family tragedy, old technology and even backpacking europe because they needed a break.&nbsp; The list goes on...</P>
    <P>But having 3 bosses that "hated me", no explaination, or switching jobs 3 times for better pay are warning flags.&nbsp;&nbsp;It should be obvious these items are warning signs:</P>
    <OL>
    <LI>"3 bosses that hated me"... are <U><STRONG>indicators</STRONG></U> that the person is a bad judge of character when interviewing, or&nbsp; they have a problem getting along with people. (You need to get solid references on this guy)
    <LI>No explaination... I can't see how this isn't a warning flag.. The guy is an IDIOT if he can't provide (or makeup) valid reasons for a jump.
    <LI>Switching jobs every 8 to 12 months for salary increases... why would you expect that the person would not quit as soon as they get a better offer.
    <LI>Unable to offer a 2 week notice?&nbsp; Who wants a person that will walk out without a transition of duties/knowlegde. The fact is that most companies don't make you stay the 2 weeks.</LI></OL>
    <P>Your "reverse" argument is non sequitur...&nbsp; my comments merely show warning signs for job hopping.&nbsp;&nbsp;But if you want a true comparision it would be the following:</P>
    <P>The person has not experienced any adversity or pressing reason to leave their current position. (AKA loyalty)</P>
    <P>The person has a valid reason for seeking new employment</P>
    <P>The person feels that they have been fairly compensated by their company.</P>
    <P>The person feels that it is important to&nbsp;minimize the disruption of&nbsp; leaving by providing the customary 2 weeks. OR the person is willing to help in the transition so they do not burn a bridge.&nbsp; </P>
    <P>I would say that person with these traits is&nbsp;someone who should be carefully examined.</P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">So, it’s just a matter of <STRIKE>having</STRIKE> inventing culturally acceptable <STRIKE>excuses</STRIKE> reasons? </SPAN></P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P>You're not a job hopper if you have legitimate reasons... but if your are a job hopper, and you don't have enough common sense to cover up the hopping, then you are the king of&nbsp;idiots...&nbsp;&nbsp;In either case, a&nbsp;good interview will uncover the clowns.</P>
  • David P. Murphy 2005-09-19 16:01
    Otto:
    <p>If somebody sets insane guidelines for dress code
    and such, then they're not respecting my abilities since they think I'm
    incapable of dressing myself, and I've lost respect for them
    for setting such insane policies.</p>
    <br>
    <br>
    I interviewed at AG Software in Reston, VA, USA a few years ago.<br>
    Everything went smoothly except at the very end; I was wearing a polo shirt<br>
    and khaki slacks, and asked about a dress code.  The interviewer replied<br>
    that <span style="font-weight: bold;">black</span> denim jeans were acceptable, but <span style="font-weight: bold;">blue</span> were not.  He had no<br>
    explanation for this policy, which was one of the reasons I declined the offer.<br>
    Not because I only owned blue jeans, but because it made no sense.<br>
    <br>
    I still can't imagine why they had that rule.<br>
    <br>
    ok<br>
    dpm<br>
  • Schroeder 2005-09-19 16:10
    <P>My favorite interview was some guy who had indicated on his resume that he did consulting work.&nbsp; He was kind of evasive about it when I asked for detail during the interview.&nbsp; I was finally able to wear him down and got him to give me a straight answer...&nbsp; Turns out that he had written some tiny VB app for his brother.&nbsp; And it wasn't even an application that was used in a professional manner.&nbsp; I think it kept track of his CD collection or something like that.&nbsp; Consulting.&nbsp; Yep.</P>
    <P>I love interviewing people and breaking them down to quivering masses of jello.&nbsp; Don't get me wrong, I'm actually a very nice guy and I try to make people feel at ease during an interview.&nbsp; But there's only one type of person I hate more than someone who lies on his resume, and that's someone who can't even lie well on his resume.&nbsp; If you're going to claim you did consulting work, it had better be real.</P>
  • jrock 2005-09-19 16:16
    <P>what about the other way around.&nbsp; i interviewed for a position and the manager asked me some yada yada questions and then i was inetreviewed by the "technical expert".&nbsp; this lady had rotting brown teeth.&nbsp; no frickin lie.&nbsp; some were missing in the front and you could visibly see her gums and remaining teeth rotting.&nbsp; i thought i was going to puke and i could hardly concentrate on the interview.&nbsp; everytime she opened her mouth i looked away.&nbsp; it is one of the most horrific things i've ever seen.</P>
    <P>needless to say, i concluded the interview as quickly as possible and never cam back.&nbsp; eeek!</P>
  • dubwai 2005-09-19 16:22
    emptyset:

    <P>
    Schroeder:
    The guys who were working 40-50 hours were the ones who had their act together and were getting things done effectively.&nbsp; The guys who were working 50+ hours were the one with poorly managed projects who were reacting to problems rather than planning solutions.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>yeah, maintaining old code is annoying.&nbsp; bleh.&nbsp; it is not the life for me.</FONT></P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P>You should be a contractor, then.&nbsp; All you'll do is write code that is unmaintainable and move on.&nbsp; Having never had to maintain this crap code, you will never know how difficult it is to support and think you are god's gift to programming.&nbsp; What a life!</P>
  • Richard Nixon 2005-09-19 16:45
    dubwai:
    emptyset:

    <p>
    Schroeder:
    The guys who were working 40-50 hours were
    the ones who had their act together and were getting things done
    effectively.&nbsp; The guys who were working 50+ hours were the one
    with poorly managed projects who were reacting to problems rather than
    planning solutions.
    </p>
    <p><font face="Courier New" size="2">yeah, maintaining old code is annoying.&nbsp; bleh.&nbsp; it is not the life for me.</font></p>
    <p>
    </p>
    <p>You should be a contractor, then.&nbsp; All you'll do is write code
    that is unmaintainable and move on.&nbsp; Having never had to maintain
    this crap code, you will never know how difficult it is to support and
    think you are god's gift to programming.&nbsp; What a life!</p>
    <br>
    <br>
    Man, you just sold me on that. Are there any downfalls to being a
    contractor besides that hollow feeling inside and a pervasive stench of
    shame?<br>
  • dubwai 2005-09-19 17:09
    Richard Nixon:
    dubwai:
    emptyset:

    <P>
    Schroeder:
    The guys who were working 40-50 hours were the ones who had their act together and were getting things done effectively.&nbsp; The guys who were working 50+ hours were the one with poorly managed projects who were reacting to problems rather than planning solutions.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>yeah, maintaining old code is annoying.&nbsp; bleh.&nbsp; it is not the life for me.</FONT></P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P>You should be a contractor, then.&nbsp; All you'll do is write code that is unmaintainable and move on.&nbsp; Having never had to maintain this crap code, you will never know how difficult it is to support and think you are god's gift to programming.&nbsp; What a life!</P>
    <P>
    <BR><BR>Man, you just sold me on that. Are there any downfalls to being a contractor besides that hollow feeling inside and a pervasive stench of shame?<BR>
    </P>
    <P>What hollow feeling?&nbsp; What shame?&nbsp; They leave with a warm glow thinking they've just provided a great value.</P>
    <P>A contractor was just showing us through some code they had written and I had been noticing that they had repetative explicit handling for errors all over the place in the code that went to a single error handling mechanism.&nbsp; Think it was possible that there was a good reason for this (yeah, right!) I asked what value this had over letting all the the errors just drop to the error handler using exception handling.&nbsp; The contractor said, 'well we don't care about errors that come from the debugging.'&nbsp;To this I replied, "but if we have an error in debugging, it's going to be a [basically silent]&nbsp;unhandled error that kills the transaction [not good]."&nbsp; He said, 'yes'.</P>
    <P>Of course, as a contractor, he cannot admit this is a problem because his boss (his real boss at the contracting firm) would be really pissed.&nbsp; So they just gloss over it like it's no big deal.</P>
  • ammoQ 2005-09-19 17:22
    emptyset:
    <font face="Courier New" size="2"><br>
    why should a programmer have to do this when their concerns are making
    a compiler/the design/the program happy?&nbsp;&nbsp;the
    compiler&nbsp;doesn't care if you code naked!</font>
    <br>
    Unless the development team is hidden away in a seperate building,
    there is a good chance they will actually encounter clients in the
    canteen, the lift etc. For that reason, a company that cares about
    looks will make sure that all of its people wear suits, even if it's
    "just in case".<br>
    <br>
    Anonymous:
    <br>

    Dude, if you're just doing Seibel installs or SAP, and you just need
    monkeys to write awful code and lots of 10-inch-thick books of
    pointlessly printed requirements, you don't need and won't get anyone
    of talent. You're just installing package software.<br>

    <br>
    <br>
    You probably have never seen SAP "customizing". That's like writing
    customized software, but with myriads of constraints, in a "language"
    that makes COBOL look sane. It takes a lot of skill and experience to
    do it right, and a lot of self-contempt to do it at all. No wonder
    those people get paid that much.<br>
    <br>
    Anonymous:
    <br>
    The interviewer replied that <span style="font-weight: bold;">black</span> denim jeans were acceptable, but <span style="font-weight: bold;">blue</span> were not.&nbsp; He had no<br>

    explanation for this policy, which was one of the reasons I declined the offer.<br>

    Not because I only owned blue jeans, but because it made no sense.<br>

    <br>
    I still can't imagine why they had that rule.<br>

    <br>
    Well, when blue jeans are worn out, they look shabby, but technically,
    they are still blue. Black denim, on the other side, turns gray when it
    wears off, so it's technically no longer black and as such no longer
    acceptable by the policy. Therefore such a policy reliefs you from
    drawing an arbitrary distinction between good blue jeans and bad blue
    jeans.<br>
  • emptyset 2005-09-19 17:33
    <P>
    dubwai:
    Of course, as a contractor, he cannot admit this is a problem because his boss (his real boss at the contracting firm) would be really pissed.&nbsp; So they just gloss over it like it's no big deal.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>that was&nbsp;hilarious.&nbsp; seriously though, this all just comes back to the inescapable conclusion that people are just getting paid to be happy consumers (and of course, i'm speaking of america, here).&nbsp; see, what's not important is that the contractor actually produces anything of value - it's that he carries a $15,000+ debt on his credit cards through an insatiable lust for shiny metal things.&nbsp; that's the reality of our brave new world: employers paying their so-called 'workers' to buy stupid shit.&nbsp; things like drug prescriptions are society's subsidy to drug manufacturers, in return for a placebo (or maybe it induces love of shiny things?).&nbsp; it's all just smoke and mirrors: nascar, the ipod, television, gasoline, and slapping magnets onto the side of an SUV.&nbsp; why does bush want to subsidize the rich and corporations?&nbsp; because without their constant flow of money to the workers, who will be buying stupid shit?</FONT></P>
  • Not Registered 2005-09-19 17:33
    Schroeder:

    <P>The guys who were working 40-50 hours were the ones who had their act together and were getting things done effectively.&nbsp; The guys who were working 50+ hours were the one with poorly managed projects who were reacting to problems rather than planning solutions.</P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P>Well managed projects don't require heroic efforts...</P>
  • emptyset 2005-09-19 17:38
    <P>
    ammoQ:
    emptyset:
    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2><BR>why should a programmer have to do this when their concerns are making a compiler/the design/the program happy?&nbsp;&nbsp;the compiler&nbsp;doesn't care if you code naked!</FONT>
    <BR>Unless the development team is hidden away in a seperate building, there is a good chance they will actually encounter clients in the canteen, the lift etc. For that reason, a company that cares about looks will make sure that all of its people wear suits, even if it's "just in case".
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>that's absolutely ridiculous.&nbsp; by that same logic, i should also be wearing diapers all the time in case i decide to crap on a client.&nbsp; or i should carry around a happy meal to provide clients with spontaneous hamburgers and a free toy!</FONT></P>
  • emptyset 2005-09-19 17:40
    <P>
    Richard Nixon:
    <BR>Yes, it's unfortunate that "emptyset" replied to someone who was discussing attire for an interview with a comment about attire for day-to-day work, as if that was refuting the statement.<BR>
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>it's also unfortunate "Richard Nixon" continously poisons the threads with his libertarian agenda.</FONT></P>
  • LaurieF 2005-09-19 17:51
    <P>
    Satanicpuppy:
    My problem with tests is syntax. If you start asking me syntax questions on a paper test, then I'll walk out. You know, I don't always keep the exact number of arguments that method can take in my head. It says a lot about an employer if they expect you to write syntactically correct code on a piece of paper.<BR><BR>As me theory, logic, problem solving, and pseudo-code all you want. But if you're gonna run it through a compiler later, to hell with you.<BR>
    </P>
    <P>The test I administer for our new contractors <EM>does</EM> contain some syntax questions, but that's just part of it. Most of them are not, but what I'm looking for is the overall competence in the answers. If they get all the syntax questions right, and all the technical general knowledge questions right, and expand on their long answers, and annotate their code, I know we're on to a good one. If I spot an syntax problem but it's a minor one, it doesn't engender a bad mark. But if there are lots of them, I smell a rat.</P>
    <P>My rule of thumb for employing anyone: can they do the job? would I like to have a drink with them? If I can say "yes" to both, they're hired.</P>
  • ammoQ 2005-09-19 17:53
    emptyset:
    <p><font face="Courier New" size="2">that's
    absolutely ridiculous.&nbsp; by that same logic, i should also be
    wearing diapers all the time in case i decide to crap on a
    client.&nbsp; or i should carry around a happy meal to provide clients
    with spontaneous hamburgers and a free toy!</font></p>
    <br>
    <br>
    Well, some companies have a strict dresscode because they have the kind
    of customers (banks, telcos etc.) who believe that only people in
    suit&amp;tie are reputable. Those companies don't want their clients to
    accidentaly meet long-heired geeks in jeans and t-shirts within the
    company building, even if they are the most clevers coders in town.
    (which would not matter anyway, because of the company's bureaucratic
    QA practices, genuises are hardly more productive than average
    programmers - both spend 95% of their time completing QA forms)&nbsp;
    If you can't live with such a dresscode, it's the wrong place for you
    to work. <br>
  • Schroeder 2005-09-19 17:56
    <P>"...What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this [forum] is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."</TH></P>
  • Schroeder 2005-09-19 17:58
    emptyset:

    <P>
    dubwai:
    Of course, as a contractor, he cannot admit this is a problem because his boss (his real boss at the contracting firm) would be really pissed.&nbsp; So they just gloss over it like it's no big deal.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>that was&nbsp;hilarious.&nbsp; seriously though, this all just comes back to the inescapable conclusion that people are just getting paid to be happy consumers (and of course, i'm speaking of america, here).&nbsp; see, what's not important is that the contractor actually produces anything of value - it's that he carries a $15,000+ debt on his credit cards through an insatiable lust for shiny metal things.&nbsp; that's the reality of our brave new world: employers paying their so-called 'workers' to buy stupid shit.&nbsp; things like drug prescriptions are society's subsidy to drug manufacturers, in return for a placebo (or maybe it induces love of shiny things?).&nbsp; it's all just smoke and mirrors: nascar, the ipod, television, gasoline, and slapping magnets onto the side of an SUV.&nbsp; why does bush want to subsidize the rich and corporations?&nbsp; because without their constant flow of money to the workers, who will be buying stupid shit?</FONT></P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P>Damnit, my previous post was supposed to&nbsp;have been in response to this.</P>
  • dubwai 2005-09-19 18:03
    emptyset:

    <P>
    dubwai:
    Of course, as a contractor, he cannot admit this is a problem because his boss (his real boss at the contracting firm) would be really pissed.&nbsp; So they just gloss over it like it's no big deal.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>that was&nbsp;hilarious.&nbsp; seriously though, this all just comes back to the inescapable conclusion that people are just getting paid to be happy consumers (and of course, i'm speaking of america, here).&nbsp; see, what's not important is that the contractor actually produces anything of value - it's that he carries a $15,000+ debt on his credit cards through an insatiable lust for shiny metal things.&nbsp; that's the reality of our brave new world: employers paying their so-called 'workers' to buy stupid shit.&nbsp; things like drug prescriptions are society's subsidy to drug manufacturers, in return for a placebo (or maybe it induces love of shiny things?).&nbsp; it's all just smoke and mirrors: nascar, the ipod, television, gasoline, and slapping magnets onto the side of an SUV.&nbsp; why does bush want to subsidize the rich and corporations?&nbsp; because without their constant flow of money to the workers, who will be buying stupid shit?</FONT></P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P>Dude, you need to lay off the bong.&nbsp; Seriously, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense.&nbsp; Why would the Illuminati want a bunch of people wasting time so they can buy a bunch of stuff?&nbsp; Why no just cut checks to people?&nbsp; What's the point of the pretend work?</P>
  • dubwai 2005-09-19 18:04
    <P>
    ammoQ:
    (which would not matter anyway, because of the company's bureaucratic QA practices, genuises are hardly more productive than average programmers - both spend 95% of their time completing QA forms)
    </P>
    <P>Can you see into my brain?</P>
  • dubwai 2005-09-19 18:34
    emptyset:

    <P>
    ammoQ:
    emptyset:
    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2><BR>why should a programmer have to do this when their concerns are making a compiler/the design/the program happy?&nbsp;&nbsp;the compiler&nbsp;doesn't care if you code naked!</FONT>
    <BR>Unless the development team is hidden away in a seperate building, there is a good chance they will actually encounter clients in the canteen, the lift etc. For that reason, a company that cares about looks will make sure that all of its people wear suits, even if it's "just in case".
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>that's absolutely ridiculous.&nbsp; by that same logic, i should also be wearing diapers all the time in case i decide to crap on a client.&nbsp; or i should carry around a happy meal to provide clients with spontaneous hamburgers and a free toy!</FONT></P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P>Actually it's a perfectly valid argument.&nbsp; Your straw men are pretty ridiculous, though.&nbsp; If you are going to use a straw man argument, you should at least try to disguise it as such.&nbsp; Your response it analogous to:</P>
    <P>[A] People should put their babies in carseats, even when they are going on very short trips.</P>
    <P>[B]That's ridiculous!&nbsp; Why not strap them into a parachute in case you drive off a cliff?&nbsp; Why not bring baby scuba gear in case you drive into a river?</P>
  • StoneCypher 2005-09-19 18:45
    <span id="PostFlatView"><span style="font-style: italic;">
    I don't think I'm a bigot or a stuffed shirt.</span><br>
    <br>
    Yeah, bigots never do.&nbsp; You're sitting there making ridiculous
    non-germane value judgements about a company based on comfortable
    chairs and personal beliefs about a workplace's ergonomics (whether
    they use words you can't spell like effervescent isn't important.)<br>
    <br>
    By the way, quit with the bolding every word you want people to think is important.&nbsp; It just makes you look stupid.<br>
    </span>
  • StoneCypher 2005-09-19 18:50
    <span id="PostFlatView"><span style="font-style: italic;">
    That's patently stupid. Someone shows up showing the proper amount of
    respect to show that they are taking the job seriously - and the
    company excuses them?</span><br style="font-style: italic;">
    <br style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">
    I call you a liar "John." Grab a piece of fat and slide off.</span><br>
    <br>
    You shouldn't.&nbsp; I've contracted to companies exactly that
    stupid.&nbsp; There are people out there who found small companies,
    then take the relatively fratboy belief that if someone shows up in a
    suit, they're going to be so stiff and rigorred that they're unable to
    function as programmers.<br>
    <br>
    I do not subscribe to that notion at all; please don't take this as a
    defense of that sort of mindset.&nbsp; All I'm saying is that yes,
    there really are companies like that.&nbsp; (It's just that the bulk of
    them fail miserably, so you don't often hear about them.)<br>
    </span>
  • StoneCypher 2005-09-19 19:00
    <span id="PostFlatView">
    My problem with tests is syntax. If you start asking me syntax
    questions on a paper test, then I'll walk out.<br>
    <br>
    Then you've obviously never been a hiring manager.&nbsp; When people
    complain about how someone got into a job despite being utterly
    clueless, it's generally because the hiring manager didn't take the
    time to confirm that the person knew what they claimed to know.<br>
    <br>
    And, to be frank, if you think having a potential employer ask you
    simple questions is a reason to leave, I think it's pretty obvious that
    you don't belong in a corporate setting.&nbsp; The employer has a
    responsibility to make sure that you're not a clueless idiot, on behalf
    of their customers.&nbsp; If you find that offensive, I've no idea how
    you could be hired in the real world.<br>
    <br>
    (Unless of course you're being offended simply by someone aiming too
    low; to that I suggest you consider how easy it is to fake your way out
    of algorithm questions, but how hard it is to fake concrete knowledge
    of simple things.&nbsp; It's very easy to guess that something needs,
    say, Dijkstra's Walk or R*, when you're a college student without
    enough practical experience to succeed; the same is not true of simple
    implementation details.&nbsp; However, if this is your concern, I've
    been harsher than you deserve; it's not terribly obvious that syntax
    questions are better indicators of bullshitters than difficult
    questions.&nbsp; The fact of the matter is that you need both; it's not
    an insult at all.)<br>
    </span>
  • StoneCypher 2005-09-19 19:14
    <span id="PostFlatView"><span style="font-style: italic;">Your "reverse" argument is non sequitur</span><br>
    <br>
    Actually, it's a straw man.&nbsp; Also, Asterix is a comic book
    character, and you don't refer to a call-out as an asterisk.&nbsp;
    Perhaps you should stick to words you know, in the future.<br>
    </span>
  • StoneCypher 2005-09-19 19:22
    <span id="PostFlatView"><font face="Courier New"><span style="font-style: italic;">it's also unfortunate "Richard Nixon" continously poisons the threads with his libertarian agenda.</span><br>
    <br>
    <span style="font-family: times new roman;">Maybe you should find out
    what a libertarian is, or explain why a nonsense attack like this is
    any better than what about you're complaining.</span><br>
    </font></span>
  • Manager 2005-09-19 20:53
    I am a mid-level manager who is about to screen some potential
    candidates. I agree with a lot of what CPound has said (although not
    all) and have come up with a series of questions to ask my future
    employees. I think this will help weed out the bad ones. Let me know
    what you think.<br>
    <ol>
    <li>Are you a Communist? Do you support the Communist Party? You
    would be surprised how many bright red CCCP and "Che Lives" shirts I've
    seen showing through their dress shirts. I think this question would
    help to eliminate 50% of the baddies.</li>
    <li>How likely are you to break down the door and spray the office with semi-automatic gunfire? If the candidate hesitates or <span style="font-style: italic;">considers </span>the
    question, he will be eliminated. The proper response is an immediate "I
    would never do such a thing!" This will eliminate another 10%.<br>
    </li>
    <li>What sort of animal/tree would you be? If they answer a type of
    tree or plant they will be eliminated. If they answer some sort of
    animal, they will be eliminated. The correct answer is <span style="font-weight: bold;">human</span>. There are no other correct responses. This question eliminates another 10%.</li>
    <li>Will you agree to cut your weird hairdo (aka "shag rug")? Most
    candidates typically wear the long hair pony-tail style. If they don't
    agree to cut it, they will be eliminated. This eliminates yet another
    10%. (The same thing goes for body piercings...unless they're female,
    in which case their super sexy.)</li>
    </ol>
    This leaves a paltry 20% of candidates who still may or may not make
    the cut. But at least I've gotten rid of the basic riff-raff. Thoughts?<br>
  • EnterUserNameHere 2005-09-19 21:59
    I'm a partner at a small firm and we (usually) have a phone interview before bringing someone in for a face-to-face interview. We always mention to the interviewee during the phone conversation that we are a REALLY "casual dress" place. It's interesting to see what people show up wearing.<br><br>In general, I can say (based on experience) that the people that show up for the formal interview in a suit and tie are nits. Oddly, they are usually the ones that are anxious to show you examples of their source code that are so full of WTF's that you wonder what they REALLY do for a living.<br><br>We've never had anyone come in MORE casual than us (I usually wear shorts, T-shirt and flip-flops so that would be difficult) and they always at least appear to be making an effort to "dress to the occasion". <br>
    <br>I'd also like to add a twist to the whole topic by adding that, while we ARE extremely casual in dress, we do "up" the dress code when clients are expected to be on the premises. While we never go so far as to require a suit and tie (we're in Miami, FL so few people with their wits about them wear a suit and tie here anyway), we do ask that everyone please wear shoes when the people paying the bills (or could possibly be paying the bills in the future) are coming in to visit.<br><br>So far, nobody has had a problem with this policy.<br><br>Thanks<br><br><br><br>
  • RFlowers 2005-09-19 22:19
    <P>So that proves it - if you don't think you're&nbsp;a bigot, you are!</P>
  • Anonymous Coward 2005-09-19 22:43
    Anonymous:
    Manni,
    You can take your unlimited hour work weeks if you want. You'll end up
    a burnt out mess at the end of them with nothing to offer others or
    yourself, and a free dinner won't make up for that.
    And if the President of the company can't devote himself to an
    interview he should have delegated. Either there's not enough staff or
    he couldn't give a shit about his employees. Would you really want to
    work under either circumstance?
    <br>
    <br>
    That's how I felt too.&nbsp; Also, the president pretty much didn't
    give a crap.&nbsp; He was sure that he was about to be bought out by
    AOL and seemed to be planning where his next vacation home might be.<br>
    <br>
    [Hahah, the captcha is "doom"]<br>
  • Omnifarious 2005-09-20 00:17
    hank miller:
    I know I'm an over sensitive
    christian, but I like it that way.&nbsp;&nbsp; People swear all the
    time, but not around me - I have made it clear that it isn't
    acceptable, and they have learned to respect that if they want to
    communicate with me.&nbsp; (Once you set the example people tend to
    follow along, so normally I don't have to say anything, just refuse to
    swear a few times when everyone else is, and they will get
    uncomfortable and stop.&nbsp; Subtile but it works)

    <p>I'm not a Christian, but I never swear myself.&nbsp; And
    people who do it around me end up getting nervous and stopping too,
    even though I generally don't care.&nbsp; :-)&nbsp; It's kind of
    amusing in a way.&nbsp; I do care if there's a lot of it and/or it's
    really gratuitous.</p>
  • qiguai 2005-09-20 01:27
    I think most programmers would be doing themselves a favor if they
    learned to dress well. I was exclusively a T-shirt and jeans guy until
    well into my twenties, and since my first programming job was in an
    academic setting, it wasn't a problem. But once I left that job (the
    pay was not great), I started to notice that programmers and engineers
    were often treated like second class citizens, even in organizations
    where they were among the most important employees (in terms of the
    bottom line). <br>
    <br>
    The world is run by people who belong to a club of sorts. There is
    something like a gentleman's agreement between members of this club to
    not screw each other, at least not in certain ways. There also seems to
    be an agreement to treat members of the "out group" as- well, as
    precisely that. Clothing is a signalling device. The rules are
    sometimes arbitrary (do you know why the bottom button of a single
    breasted jacket is left undone? or why a button down shirt is more
    casual than a point collar?- historical accident in both cases), but,
    then, the particular phonemes that make up a word are the result of
    historical accident as well; what matters is that they are agreed upon.<br>
    <br>
    I'm not saying that I approve of this- I'd much prefer a society in
    which social standing was determined by analytic ability ;). As a
    programmer, I wouldn't try to implement a comparison based sort that
    ran in O(n) time, just because I disapproved of O(n log n) algorithms.
    Hierarchy in primate groups seems to be as immutable as constraints on
    computation- forgetting that people are basically very smart chimps is
    always a mistake (my apologies to any Creationists out there), and
    generally a costly one.<br>
    <br>
    The thing is that, as a programmer, I figure I'm a fair bit smarter
    than most of the members of the club (having an IQ- and yes, I know
    that the entire concept of IQ is controversial these days- between the
    60th and 90th percentile is an aid to getting into, and advancing
    within,  the club- higher than that is a strike against you). Even
    if I wasn't raised so that the rules were second nature (and trust me,
    I wasn't), I'm capable of figuring them out- in fact, I know them
    better than most people born into the club (I don't have problems
    modelling others' internal state, so I clearly don't have Aspergers,
    but I'm prone to the same kind of obsessiveness, and when I decided to
    learn how to dress I learned everything I could about it). Clothing is
    just one signalling mechanism, but it's an important part, and the
    first hurdle. <br>
    <br>
    I'm also smart enough (and have spent enough time in NYC) to never pay
    retail. In fact, I try to avoid paying more than 10% of retail for most
    items. Decent shoes start at $300.00 US (Allen Edmonds is a good deal
    at around that, for the budget minded, and EGs are along the same
    lines- a bit nicer, but harder to get cheap- but make sure you
    understand the level of formality of each style before you buy; the AE
    Park Avenue is a good choice for professional situations), and decent
    suits start around $1500.00 (retail). My current wardrobe would cost
    about $50,000.00 at retail. I've spent less than $5000.00 on it (and
    another few thousand on tailoring). I would guess that my return on
    that investment is several thousand percent, plus some intangibles
    (like not being treated like a servant). I am at least sure of one
    thing- in any professional situation I will be better dressed than
    anyone else there.<br>
    <br>
    To fit really well, clothing has to be custom made, but only a few
    tailors are capable of producing clothes that are as good as high end
    RTW, so unless you have really unusual dimensions you're much better
    off buying RTW (at a deep discount) and having it tailored, if price
    matters to you (big hint on the club- try to get suits that have no
    buttonholes on the sleeves, and come with the buttons in a bag in the
    breast pocket- then get functional buttonholes sewn once the sleeves
    have been altered- functional buttonholes mark you as a "Master of the
    Universe"(TM), and command instant respect from other "Masters of the
    Universe"(TM)- think the business card scene in "American Psycho").<br>
    <br>
    If all of this seems just a little bit silly- yes, yes, it is
    tremendously silly. Almost every really brilliant programmer I've ever
    known seemed to have been dressed by their blind, mother- a few days
    before. Most of them lacked even the rudiments of business etiquette.
    None of them bothered to disguise their intelligence when dealing with
    people who were made uncomfortable by really smart people. None of them
    were paid anything near what they were worth, and, if they were in
    professional settings, few of them were treated with the respect that
    they deserved. Some of them were quite content, but some of them were
    bitter. <br>
    <br>
    I can do most of my current job in my underwear- in fact I could do it
    naked, if I wanted. I'm at the second level on the org chart, and
    report to the owner of the company. I get to make the technical
    decisions, for the most part. I could burn my clothes, and it would not
    affect my current job. I could not have gotten this job without items
    on my resume that required that I play the game. I get paid a
    reasonable salary for an executive position with a small company, but I
    also know that if the job ever gets too annoying I can make more money
    than I make now by moving to a larger (infinitely more annoying)
    company that is hungry for people who are both competent, and refuse to
    wear a jacket without functional buttonholes...<br>
    <br>
    In short, this is how the world works. Dress how you want, but don't
    complain about how much incompetents get paid if you match your socks
    to your shoes, or your shirt. Also, please understand that corporate
    America has a pecking order- it is appropriate for the CTO to show up
    last to an interview (almost required at a formal institution), and it
    is wholly inappropriate to call him Beavis or Butthead. The only one of
    these guys worth thinking about hiring for a corporate position is the
    "sit down" guy- he sounds like a good programmer. They should have
    offered him the job, if everything else looked good, but also lowered
    the offer by 10k or more, assuming that he was worth more than he could
    command.<br>
  • qiguai 2005-09-20 01:37
    I meant blind, senile mother.<br>
  • Homeboy 2005-09-20 02:23
    Anonymous:
    it is appropriate for the CTO to show up
    last to an interview (almost required at a formal institution)
    <br>
    <br>
    Did you mean inappropriate or appropriate?<br>
    <br>
    Every single interview I have been in the CTO comes in last...usually very late. I'm pretty sure it's to make the candidate <span style="font-style: italic;">squirm</span>.<br>
    <br>
    I bet they get some sort of sick enjoyment knowing the candidate is sweating bullets waiting for "the big CTO" to arrive.<br>
  • Tommy 2005-09-20 02:29
    It would be funny to prey on the interviewer's fears of the candidate going postal.<br>
    <br>
    You could say something like: "Do you guys press charges? I sure hope
    not. How about search vehicles? I would appreciate it if you didn't
    look in my car's trunk. What's your take on personal firearms? Are
    there any firing ranges around here?"<br>
    <br>
    It would be funny to see their expression. That and see how fast they would call security.<br>
  • qiguai 2005-09-20 02:58
    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:
    it is appropriate for the CTO to show up
    last to an interview (almost required at a formal institution)
    <br>
    <br>
    Did you mean inappropriate or appropriate?<br>
    <br>
    Every single interview I have been in the CTO comes in last...usually very late. I'm pretty sure it's to make the candidate <span style="font-style: italic;">squirm</span>.<br>
    <br>
    I bet they get some sort of sick enjoyment knowing the candidate is sweating bullets waiting for "the big CTO" to arrive.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    I meant appropriate. That's how it works. It's rude to show up after
    someone higher than you on the org chart (after a certain point- this
    only matters for executives). That's why the CTO shows up late to every
    interview you go to- he has to give his subordinates a few minutes of
    leeway, so they show up before him even if they get hung up for a
    minute or two. This only applies at traditional companies- but note
    that they make up a good chunk of the IT market. It's not sick, unless
    you consider all of corporate culture sick (and if you do, well, either
    don't work in corporate-land, or suck it up).<br>
    <br>
    Don't squirm. Don't sweat bullets. Don't get nervous and start making
    endless chitchat (do compliment someone's tie/cufflinks/etc [but not an
    item of clothing- you compliment accessories only, never items of
    clothing, and never ostentatious accessories, like expensive
    watches]  in the hopes that they will go on a talking jag and let
    you sit there and nod- make sure that it is the senior person in the
    room, as only they are allowed to go on a talking jag). This isn't
    actually meant as a test for you, but you can still fail it. This is
    actually one of the best arguments for dressing well I can think of-
    you can just sit there and think about how much better dressed you are
    than the people across the table- but don't smirk.<br>
  • Ben 2005-09-20 04:41
    Anonymous:
    I am a mid-level manager who is about to screen some potential candidates. I agree with a lot of what CPound has said (although not all) and have come up with a series of questions to ask my future employees. I think this will help weed out the bad ones. Let me know what you think.<BR>
    <OL>
    <LI>Are you a Communist? Do you support the Communist Party? You would be surprised how many bright red CCCP and "Che Lives" shirts I've seen showing through their dress shirts. I think this question would help to eliminate 50% of the baddies.
    <LI>How likely are you to break down the door and spray the office with semi-automatic gunfire? If the candidate hesitates or <SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic">considers </SPAN>the question, he will be eliminated. The proper response is an immediate "I would never do such a thing!" This will eliminate another 10%.<BR>
    <LI>What sort of animal/tree would you be? If they answer a type of tree or plant they will be eliminated. If they answer some sort of animal, they will be eliminated. The correct answer is <SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">human</SPAN>. There are no other correct responses. This question eliminates another 10%.
    <LI>Will you agree to cut your weird hairdo (aka "shag rug")? Most candidates typically wear the long hair pony-tail style. If they don't agree to cut it, they will be eliminated. This eliminates yet another 10%. (The same thing goes for body piercings...unless they're female, in which case their super sexy.) </LI></OL>
    <P>This leaves a paltry 20% of candidates who still may or may not make the cut. But at least I've gotten rid of the basic riff-raff. Thoughts?<BR>
    </P>
    <P>That's brilliant.&nbsp;It does sound more like an interview process for&nbsp;joining the Nazis&nbsp;though. They apparently had this thing about the pure Aryan race, where everybody looked and acted the same, had no particular political leanings, and acted like a lemming. You seem to have described your interview process as having much the same requirements. I do think you should add a point number five, just to complete a fine set of questions:</P>
    <P>5. If ( (blondeHaired &amp;&amp; blueEyed &amp;&amp;&nbsp;tall) &amp;&amp; (handsome || (pretty &amp;&amp; female &amp;&amp; hasBigTits)) ) { accept = true; }</P>
  • Ben 2005-09-20 04:44
    <P>
    EnterUserNameHere:
    I'm a partner at a small firm and we (usually) have a phone interview before bringing someone in for a face-to-face interview. We always mention to the interviewee during the phone conversation that we are a REALLY "casual dress" place. It's interesting to see what people show up wearing.<BR><BR>In general, I can say (based on experience) that the people that show up for the formal interview in a suit and tie are nits. Oddly, they are usually the ones that are anxious to show you examples of their source code that are so full of WTF's that you wonder what they REALLY do for a living.<BR><BR>We've never had anyone come in MORE casual than us (I usually wear shorts, T-shirt and flip-flops so that would be difficult) and they always at least appear to be making an effort to "dress to the occasion". <BR><BR>I'd also like to add a twist to the whole topic by adding that, while we ARE extremely casual in dress, we do "up" the dress code when clients are expected to be on the premises. While we never go so far as to require a suit and tie (we're in Miami, FL so few people with their wits about them wear a suit and tie here anyway), we do ask that everyone please wear shoes when the people paying the bills (or could possibly be paying the bills in the future) are coming in to visit.<BR><BR>So far, nobody has had a problem with this policy.<BR><BR>Thanks<BR>
    </P>
    <P>That's awesome, I love you. Please can I come and work for you?</P>
  • ammoQ 2005-09-20 05:10
    Anonymous:
    <br>
    That's brilliant.<br>
    <br>
    No, that's <span style="font-weight: bold;">brillant</span>.<br>
    <br>
    It does sound more like an interview process for&nbsp;joining the
    Nazis&nbsp;though. They apparently had this thing about the pure Aryan
    race, where everybody looked and acted the same, had no particular
    political leanings, and acted like a lemming. You seem to have
    described your interview process as having much the same requirements.
    I do think you should add a point number five, just to complete a fine
    set of questions:
    <p>5. If ( (blondeHaired &amp;&amp; blueEyed &amp;&amp;&nbsp;tall)
    &amp;&amp; (handsome || (pretty &amp;&amp; female &amp;&amp;
    hasBigTits)) ) { accept = true; }<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    It's not that simple. At least for the more important positions in
    their political hierachy, one had to proof that all his ancestors were
    Aryan, too (the so-called "Ariernachweis")<br>
    </p>
  • Ben 2005-09-20 05:51
    ammoQ:
    Anonymous:
    <BR>That's brilliant.<BR>
    <BR>No, that's <SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">brillant</SPAN>.<BR>
    <BR>It does sound more like an interview process for&nbsp;joining the Nazis&nbsp;though. They apparently had this thing about the pure Aryan race, where everybody looked and acted the same, had no particular political leanings, and acted like a lemming. You seem to have described your interview process as having much the same requirements. I do think you should add a point number five, just to complete a fine set of questions:
    <P>5. If ( (blondeHaired &amp;&amp; blueEyed &amp;&amp;&nbsp;tall) &amp;&amp; (handsome || (pretty &amp;&amp; female &amp;&amp; hasBigTits)) ) { accept = true; }<BR>
    <BR><BR>It's not that simple. At least for the more important positions in their political hierachy, one had to proof that all his ancestors were Aryan, too (the so-called "Ariernachweis")<BR></P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P>Specifically:</P>
    <P><EM>"German mystics formed the </EM><A title=Germanenorden href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanenorden"><EM>Germanenorden</EM></A><EM> (Order of the Teutons). The Germanenorden was a mystic society based on proof of </EM><A title=Aryan href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan"><EM>Aryan</EM></A><EM> ancestry. Founding members of the order included </EM><A title="Theodor Fritsch" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Fritsch"><EM>Theodor Fritsch</EM></A><EM>, </EM><A class=new title="Philipp Stauff" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philipp_Stauff&amp;action=edit"><EM>Philipp Stauff</EM></A><EM> (pupil of </EM><A title="Guido von List" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_von_List"><EM>Guido von List</EM></A><EM>) and </EM><A class=new title="Hermann Pohl" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hermann_Pohl&amp;action=edit"><EM>Hermann Pohl</EM></A><EM>; Pohl later formed the </EM><A class=new title="Walvater Teutonic Order of the Holy Grail" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walvater_Teutonic_Order_of_the_Holy_Grail&amp;action=edit"><EM>Walvater Teutonic Order of the Holy Grail</EM></A><EM> in </EM><A title=1915 href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1915"><EM>1915</EM></A><EM>. Many members of the Germanenorden would go on to achieve high-ranking positions within the Nazi party."</EM> (source Wikipedia.org)</P>
    <P>Generally I was just making a point that the original poster's comments whether serious or not,&nbsp;seemed&nbsp;facist or dictatorial in nature. The reference to the Nazis and the&nbsp;aforementioned concept of&nbsp;an Aryan master race (Herrenrasse), was merely to&nbsp;enforce the point that&nbsp;the poster&nbsp;would seem to have something against people who didn't conform to&nbsp;their exact ideals (no different hairstyles, no political bias other than their own, no individuality, etc). I wasn't trying to make a statement about Nazism or any other political movement.&nbsp;I was merely surprised that a manager would admit to requiring an automaton.</P>
    <P>P.S. Che rocks!</P>
  • Jon Limjap 2005-09-20 05:51
    RFlowers:
    <p>I would like to throw my 0010 cents in on the topic of hours at work. Myself, I would <strong>not</strong>
    like to work 60+ hours, although I could do it every once in a while. I
    am a 40 hour guy, and&nbsp;I know this hurts my career overall. I'm
    willing to make the trade-off and I have made decisions fully aware of
    the consequences. I've told others (go-getters) this, and they think
    I'm a fool. But these guys don't have families, not many friends, and
    their apartments are basically cubicles anyway. (They don't own their
    own home; maybe at retirement.) I envy the money they make, but I made
    my decision being aware what I was missing.</p>
    <p>That being said, there do seem to be a few that "have it all," but maybe it just seems that way. </p>
    <br>
    <br>
    Amen!<br>
  • ammoQ 2005-09-20 06:28
    Anonymous:
    <p>Specifically:</p>
    <p><em>"German mystics formed the </em><a title="Germanenorden" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanenorden"><em>Germanenorden</em></a><em> (Order of the Teutons). The Germanenorden was a mystic society based on proof of </em><a title="Aryan" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan"><em>Aryan</em></a><em> ancestry. Founding members of the order included </em><a title="Theodor Fritsch" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Fritsch"><em>Theodor Fritsch</em></a><em>, </em><a class="new" title="Philipp Stauff" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philipp_Stauff&amp;action=edit"><em>Philipp Stauff</em></a><em> (pupil of </em><a title="Guido von List" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_von_List"><em>Guido von List</em></a><em>) and </em><a class="new" title="Hermann Pohl" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hermann_Pohl&amp;action=edit"><em>Hermann Pohl</em></a><em>; Pohl later formed the </em><a class="new" title="Walvater Teutonic Order of the Holy Grail" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walvater_Teutonic_Order_of_the_Holy_Grail&amp;action=edit"><em>Walvater Teutonic Order of the Holy Grail</em></a><em> in </em><a title="1915" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1915"><em>1915</em></a><em>. Many members of the Germanenorden would go on to achieve high-ranking positions within the Nazi party."</em> (source Wikipedia.org)<br>
    </p>



    <p>
    <br>
    True, but it misses one fact: the "Ariernachweis" was not something
    required
    only by members of the "Germanenorden". It was part of the Nazi's
    "ethic cleansing" (to use a modern euphemizing word), affected the
    whole population
    and prepared for the holocaust. IIRC, the higher the political
    position, the more generations of his ancestors one had to proof to be
    Aryan. But even for normal people some level of proof (IIRC 3
    generations) was required.<br>
    <br>
    Generally I was just making a point that the original poster's comments
    whether serious or not,&nbsp;seemed&nbsp;facist or dictatorial in
    nature. The reference to the Nazis and the&nbsp;aforementioned concept
    of&nbsp;an Aryan master race (Herrenrasse), was merely to&nbsp;enforce
    the point that&nbsp;the poster&nbsp;would seem to have something
    against people who didn't conform to&nbsp;their exact ideals (no
    different hairstyles, no political bias other than their own, no
    individuality, etc). I wasn't trying to make a statement about Nazism
    or any other political movement.&nbsp;I was merely surprised that a
    manager would admit to requiring an automaton.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    It's always dangerous to compare someone or something with the Nazis
    and the inconceivable cruelity of their system. Anyway, I'm sure the
    poster of those rules was joking.<br>
    </p>
  • Kefer 2005-09-20 06:46
    Guess you mean 'ethnic cleansing'...
  • ammoQ 2005-09-20 06:51
    Kefer:
    Guess you mean 'ethnic cleansing'...
    <br>
    <br>
    yes, of course<br>
  • qiguai 2005-09-20 06:59
    Anonymous:
    P.S. Che rocks!
    <br>
    <br>
    So is it the fact that he was responsible for executing dissidents that
    first attracted you to him, or that he spearheaded the placement of
    homosexuals into concentration camps?<br>
  • Niels 2005-09-20 07:09
    JimNtexas:
    But I'm sorry, I can't work in a 20 person bullpen.  And I don't
    need the guy with the private office to tell me how wonderful it is to
    work with 19 other people all crammed into what was really a wide
    hallway.
    <br>
    I've never worked in environments where I couldn't see or hear other
    people thank god. I'd go barking mad locked in a cubicle for the rest
    of my life. Social interaction is an important part of your (working)
    life you know   :)<br>
    <br>
    Not that I've ever understood the whole cubicle farm fascination in the
    US anyway.... never seen it in Europe, and I know it to be a very rare
    concept here thankfully.<br>
  • Jon Limjap 2005-09-20 08:05
    Anonymous:
    JimNtexas:
    But I'm sorry, I can't work in a 20 person bullpen.&nbsp; And I don't
    need the guy with the private office to tell me how wonderful it is to
    work with 19 other people all crammed into what was really a wide
    hallway.
    <br>
    I've never worked in environments where I couldn't see or hear other
    people thank god. I'd go barking mad locked in a cubicle for the rest
    of my life. Social interaction is an important part of your (working)
    life you know&nbsp;&nbsp; :)<br>
    <br>
    Not that I've ever understood the whole cubicle farm fascination in the
    US anyway.... never seen it in Europe, and I know it to be a very rare
    concept here thankfully.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    I don't work in a cubicle, but neither will I work in a hallway of flat tables with people passing through all the time.<br>
  • Richard Nixon 2005-09-20 08:36
    emptyset:
    <p>
    Richard Nixon:
    <br>Yes, it's
    unfortunate that "emptyset" replied to someone who was discussing
    attire for an interview with a comment about attire for day-to-day
    work, as if that was refuting the statement.<br>
    </p>
    <p><font face="Courier New" size="2">it's also unfortunate "Richard Nixon" continously poisons the threads with his libertarian agenda.</font></p>
    <br>
    <br>
    Try to stay on topic.<br>
  • Ben 2005-09-20 08:41
    <P>
    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:
    P.S. Che rocks!
    <BR><BR>So is it the fact that he was responsible for executing dissidents that first attracted you to him, or that he spearheaded the placement of homosexuals into concentration camps?<BR>
    </P>
    <P>Seriously, are you American or just don't&nbsp;understand satire? I refer you to the second to last sentence of my last but one paragraph. It went something along the lines of "I'm not trying to male a political statement", just incase you can't find it.</P>
  • emptyset 2005-09-20 10:41
    <P>
    dubwai:
    Dude, you need to lay off the bong.&nbsp; Seriously, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense.&nbsp; Why would the Illuminati want a bunch of people wasting time so they can buy a bunch of stuff?&nbsp; Why no just cut checks to people?&nbsp; What's the point of the pretend work?
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>because if people were just to recieve a check every month, that would be <STRONG>communism</STRONG>.&nbsp; and we don't want that.</FONT></P>
  • emptyset 2005-09-20 10:45
    <P>
    dubwai:
    Actually it's a perfectly valid argument.&nbsp; Your straw men are pretty ridiculous, though.&nbsp; If you are going to use a straw man argument, you should at least try to disguise it as such.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>nope!</FONT></P>
  • emptyset 2005-09-20 10:47
    <P>
    Anonymous:
    <SPAN id=PostFlatView><FONT face="Courier New"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">Maybe you should find out what a libertarian is, or explain why a nonsense attack like this is any better than what about you're complaining.</SPAN><BR></FONT></SPAN>
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>maybe you shouldn't be so afraid to end a sentence with a preposition.&nbsp; i know perfectly well the traits and characteristics of libertarians that i'm 98% effective at identifying them in the wild.</FONT></P>
  • emptyset 2005-09-20 10:51
    <P>
    Anonymous:
    The world is run by people who belong to a club of sorts. There is something like a gentleman's agreement between members of this club to not screw each other, at least not in certain ways. There also seems to be an agreement to treat members of the "out group" as- well, as precisely that. Clothing is a signalling device. The rules are sometimes arbitrary (do you know why the bottom button of a single breasted jacket is left undone? or why a button down shirt is more casual than a point collar?- historical accident in both cases), but, then, the particular phonemes that make up a word are the result of historical accident as well; what matters is that they are agreed upon.<BR><BR>I'm not saying that I approve of this- I'd much prefer a society in which social standing was determined by analytic ability ;). As a programmer, I wouldn't try to implement a comparison based sort that ran in O(n) time, just because I disapproved of O(n log n) algorithms. Hierarchy in primate groups seems to be as immutable as constraints on computation- forgetting that people are basically very smart chimps is always a mistake (my apologies to any Creationists out there), and generally a costly one.<BR><BR>The thing is that, as a programmer, I figure I'm a fair bit smarter than most of the members of the club (having an IQ- and yes, I know that the entire concept of IQ is controversial these days- between the 60th and 90th percentile is an aid to getting into, and advancing within,&nbsp; the club- higher than that is a strike against you). Even if I wasn't raised so that the rules were second nature (and trust me, I wasn't), I'm capable of figuring them out- in fact, I know them better than most people born into the club (I don't have problems modelling others' internal state, so I clearly don't have Aspergers, but I'm prone to the same kind of obsessiveness, and when I decided to learn how to dress I learned everything I could about it). Clothing is just one signalling mechanism, but it's an important part, and the first hurdle.
    <BR></P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>and i'm the crazy?</FONT></P>
  • emptyset 2005-09-20 10:54
    <P>
    Anonymous:
    So is it the fact that he was responsible for executing dissidents that first attracted you to him, or that he spearheaded the placement of homosexuals into concentration camps?<BR>
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>this is incorrect.&nbsp; where do you see this garbage about che guevara?</FONT></P>
  • anon 2005-09-20 11:17
    <P>
    Anonymous:
    I think most programmers would be doing themselves a favor if they learned to dress well. I was exclusively a T-shirt and jeans guy until well into my twenties, and since my first programming job was in an academic setting, it wasn't a problem. But once I left that job (the pay was not great), I started to notice that programmers and engineers were often treated like second class citizens, even in organizations where they were among the most important employees (in terms of the bottom line). <BR><BR>The world is run by people who belong to a club of sorts. There is something like a gentleman's agreement between members of this club to not screw each other, at least not in certain ways. There also seems to be an agreement to treat members of the "out group" as- well, as precisely that. Clothing is a signalling device. The rules are sometimes arbitrary (do you know why the bottom button of a single breasted jacket is left undone? or why a button down shirt is more casual than a point collar?- historical accident in both cases), but, then, the particular phonemes that make up a word are the result of historical accident as well; what matters is that they are agreed upon.<BR><BR>I'm not saying that I approve of this- I'd much prefer a society in which social standing was determined by analytic ability ;). As a programmer, I wouldn't try to implement a comparison based sort that ran in O(n) time, just because I disapproved of O(n log n) algorithms. Hierarchy in primate groups seems to be as immutable as constraints on computation- forgetting that people are basically very smart chimps is always a mistake (my apologies to any Creationists out there), and generally a costly one.<BR><BR>The thing is that, as a programmer, I figure I'm a fair bit smarter than most of the members of the club (having an IQ- and yes, I know that the entire concept of IQ is controversial these days- between the 60th and 90th percentile is an aid to getting into, and advancing within,&nbsp; the club- higher than that is a strike against you). Even if I wasn't raised so that the rules were second nature (and trust me, I wasn't), I'm capable of figuring them out- in fact, I know them better than most people born into the club (I don't have problems modelling others' internal state, so I clearly don't have Aspergers, but I'm prone to the same kind of obsessiveness, and when I decided to learn how to dress I learned everything I could about it). Clothing is just one signalling mechanism, but it's an important part, and the first hurdle. <BR><BR>I'm also smart enough (and have spent enough time in NYC) to never pay retail. In fact, I try to avoid paying more than 10% of retail for most items. Decent shoes start at $300.00 US (Allen Edmonds is a good deal at around that, for the budget minded, and EGs are along the same lines- a bit nicer, but harder to get cheap- but make sure you understand the level of formality of each style before you buy; the AE Park Avenue is a good choice for professional situations), and decent suits start around $1500.00 (retail). My current wardrobe would cost about $50,000.00 at retail. I've spent less than $5000.00 on it (and another few thousand on tailoring). I would guess that my return on that investment is several thousand percent, plus some intangibles (like not being treated like a servant). I am at least sure of one thing- in any professional situation I will be better dressed than anyone else there.<BR><BR>To fit really well, clothing has to be custom made, but only a few tailors are capable of producing clothes that are as good as high end RTW, so unless you have really unusual dimensions you're much better off buying RTW (at a deep discount) and having it tailored, if price matters to you (big hint on the club- try to get suits that have no buttonholes on the sleeves, and come with the buttons in a bag in the breast pocket- then get functional buttonholes sewn once the sleeves have been altered- functional buttonholes mark you as a "Master of the Universe"(TM), and command instant respect from other "Masters of the Universe"(TM)- think the business card scene in "American Psycho").<BR><BR>If all of this seems just a little bit silly- yes, yes, it is tremendously silly. Almost every really brilliant programmer I've ever known seemed to have been dressed by their blind, mother- a few days before. Most of them lacked even the rudiments of business etiquette. None of them bothered to disguise their intelligence when dealing with people who were made uncomfortable by really smart people. None of them were paid anything near what they were worth, and, if they were in professional settings, few of them were treated with the respect that they deserved. Some of them were quite content, but some of them were bitter. <BR><BR>I can do most of my current job in my underwear- in fact I could do it naked, if I wanted. I'm at the second level on the org chart, and report to the owner of the company. I get to make the technical decisions, for the most part. I could burn my clothes, and it would not affect my current job. I could not have gotten this job without items on my resume that required that I play the game. I get paid a reasonable salary for an executive position with a small company, but I also know that if the job ever gets too annoying I can make more money than I make now by moving to a larger (infinitely more annoying) company that is hungry for people who are both competent, and refuse to wear a jacket without functional buttonholes...<BR><BR>In short, this is how the world works. Dress how you want, but don't complain about how much incompetents get paid if you match your socks to your shoes, or your shirt. Also, please understand that corporate America has a pecking order- it is appropriate for the CTO to show up last to an interview (almost required at a formal institution), and it is wholly inappropriate to call him Beavis or Butthead. The only one of these guys worth thinking about hiring for a corporate position is the "sit down" guy- he sounds like a good programmer. They should have offered him the job, if everything else looked good, but also lowered the offer by 10k or more, assuming that he was worth more than he could command.<BR>
    </P>
    <P>WTF? How does your company stay profitable?</P>
  • James 2005-09-20 11:29
    Anonymous:

    <p>WTF? How does your company stay profitable?</p>
    By actually knowing something about the world.<br>
    <br>
    I completetly agree with everything he's said. Some people on here have
    stated they would refuse to wear a suit to an interview. That's exactly
    what this is about. If you can't put the effort in, to show that you're
    willing to make yourself look good, why on earth should a company pay
    you what you think your worth?<br>
    <br>
    You can go far if you put the effort in, and care about your
    appearance. As vain as it seems, it's true. The corporate world, where
    people earn what they're worth, will seldom give a shit if you can't
    put on a suit.<br>
  • brazzy 2005-09-20 11:58
    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:

    <p>WTF? How does your company stay profitable?</p>
    By actually knowing something about the world.<br>
    <br>
    I completetly agree with everything he's said. Some people on here have
    stated they would refuse to wear a suit to an interview. That's exactly
    what this is about. If you can't put the effort in, to show that you're
    willing to make yourself look good, why on earth should a company pay
    you what you think your worth?<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Because they're not hiring me to look good, but to get work done?<br>
    <br>
    Anonymous:
    <br>
    You can go far if you put the effort in, and care about your
    appearance. As vain as it seems, it's true. The corporate world, where
    people earn what they're worth, will seldom give a shit if you can't
    put on a suit.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    True except that part of "earn what they're worth", though of course
    "worth" lies in the eye of the beholder.&nbsp; Besides, to "go far" in
    that world, wearing a suit is only the first step. Next comes
    ass-kissing and backstabbing. I don't want to go down that road, so why
    should I even make the first step?<br>
    <br>
  • UncleMidriff 2005-09-20 12:37
    brazzy:
    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:

    <p>WTF? How does your company stay profitable?</p>
    By actually knowing something about the world.<br>
    <br>
    I completetly agree with everything he's said. Some people on here have
    stated they would refuse to wear a suit to an interview. That's exactly
    what this is about. If you can't put the effort in, to show that you're
    willing to make yourself look good, why on earth should a company pay
    you what you think your worth?<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Because they're not hiring me to look good, but to get work done?<br>
    <br>
    Anonymous:
    <br>
    You can go far if you put the effort in, and care about your
    appearance. As vain as it seems, it's true. The corporate world, where
    people earn what they're worth, will seldom give a shit if you can't
    put on a suit.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    True except that part of "earn what they're worth", though of course
    "worth" lies in the eye of the beholder.&nbsp; Besides, to "go far" in
    that world, wearing a suit is only the first step. Next comes
    ass-kissing and backstabbing. I don't want to go down that road, so why
    should I even make the first step?<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    I had no idea that those who willingly wear a suit are barreling down
    the path to moral destruction.&nbsp; And I don't like the implication
    all over this thread that people who willingly submit to their
    employer's strict dress code are soulless, inept, ass-kissing lovers of
    vanity.<br>
    <br>
    The business world is how it is; you can whine, bitch, moan, and gripe
    about it all you like, but doing so will most likely change
    nothing.&nbsp; If the clothing you wear is really such a moral issue
    with you and you have the moral courage to stand up to employers in the
    name of wearing blue jeans to work, then I admire you.&nbsp; Keep
    fighting the good fight.&nbsp; But don't try to imply that those of us
    who genuinely just don't give a crap whether we're in blue jeans or in
    a suit are somehow morally deficient.&nbsp; And if you do, please
    realize how much like "them" (the suit wearers who judge interview
    candidates strictly on what they're wearing) doing so makes you<br>
  • phred 2005-09-20 12:44
    <P>I&nbsp; liked the "beavis and butthead" one. I've had the temptation, you know, you go to an interview, you might not be that enthused and the more you see the mechanics play out, the more convinced you'll not have anything to do with them. The bad manners, make the interviewee wait way past his appointment, the idle mannerisms meant to make sure the interviewee is perceived to be totally invisible in the presense of those with the good fortune to be already hired. Its too bad that sometimes with the market being employer based people really have to suffer indignities to get work, and the interviewers know it and make it pay.</P>
    <P>&nbsp;</P>
  • phred 2005-09-20 12:52
    <P>
    Anonymous:
    dubwai:
    Dude, sorry but that makes you seem like a&nbsp;total psycho.
    <BR><BR>Maybe I am.&nbsp; I was completely focused on trying to concentrate on a staticky long distance call to a non-native-English speaker, and she was <SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic">physically leaning on me </SPAN>to see this picture, after I had told her I was interviewing someone.<BR><BR>I'm typically the model of politeness, but I have absolutely zero patience for that kind of rudeness.&nbsp; Something in me just snapped and I unfortunately responded with as much rudeness as I was given.<BR>
    </P>
    <P>We'll probably read about you "snapping" at work some day.</P>
    <P>&nbsp;</P>
  • hank miller 2005-09-20 13:28
    Anonymous:
    <br>
    <br>
    To fit really well, clothing has to be custom made, <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    If you ever go to a third would country, (Thiland), look for a
    taylor.&nbsp;&nbsp; Often you can get a nice suit that fits you
    perfectly, for cheap.&nbsp; More money than jeans and a t-shirt, but it
    will be more (!) comfortable than shorts, flip-flops, and an old
    t-shirt.<br>
    <br>
    Even if you only wear it to funerals and weddings, you will be glad you did it.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>
    <br>
    If you consider a job where a suit is a must, see if you can arrange a
    business trip to such a country early on.&nbsp;&nbsp; Wear the cheapest
    suit (that still looks nice - goodwill or such) until you
    then.&nbsp;&nbsp; May or may not work out, but if it does you will
    never want to go back to casual dress again.<br>
    <br>
    You are still looking at a couple grand to buy this suit, but that is
    what you would spend on a nice suit and alterations here, so it isn't
    too big a deal.&nbsp; <br>
  • Richard Nixon 2005-09-20 13:46
    phred:
    <p>I&nbsp; liked the "beavis and butthead" one.
    I've had the temptation, you know, you go to an interview, you might
    not be that enthused and the more you see the mechanics play out, the
    more convinced you'll not have anything to do with them. The bad
    manners, make the interviewee wait way past his appointment, the idle
    mannerisms meant to make sure the interviewee is perceived to be
    totally invisible in the presense of those with the good fortune to be
    already hired. Its too bad that sometimes with the market being
    employer based people really have to suffer indignities to get work,
    and the interviewers know it and make it pay.</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    You might have a persecution complex. I will order a hug for you.<br>
  • qiguai 2005-09-20 14:38
    Anonymous:
    <br>
    <br>
    Anonymous:
    <br>
    <p>I can do most of my current job in my underwear- in fact I could do
    it naked, if I wanted. I'm at the second level on the org chart, and
    report to the owner of the company. I get to make the technical
    decisions, for the most part. I could burn my clothes, and it would not
    affect my current job. I could not have gotten this job without items
    on my resume that required that I play the game. I get paid a
    reasonable salary for an executive position with a small company, but I
    also know that if the job ever gets too annoying I can make more money
    than I make now by moving to a larger (infinitely more annoying)
    company that is hungry for people who are both competent, and refuse to
    wear a jacket without functional buttonholes...<br>
    </p>
    <p>WTF? How does your company stay profitable?</p>
    <br>
    <br>
    Note my quote above: my current company does not care much about
    clothes- we are too small to focus on inessentials. OTOH, a lot of very
    profitable companies do have strict dress codes. At a lot of others,
    where programmers are allowed leeway that others don't have, that
    leeway is patronizing- it's the equivalent of sitting at the kids'
    table at Thanksgiving, where you can play with your food, and make fart
    jokes.<br>
    <br>
    If the rules in this post seem complicated, or too much to deal with, I
    have bad news for you- this is the tip of the iceberg. Learning to
    dress properly is a major project, if you didn't get the rules drilled
    into you as a child. That's the point.<br>
  • C-minus 2005-09-20 14:58
    When I do an interview, I ask them to explain something on the
    whiteboard.&nbsp; I make sure to put a permanent marker closest to the
    board.&nbsp; Attention to detail is important.<br>
  • treypole 2005-09-20 15:22
    Anonymous:
    When I do an interview, I ask them to explain something on the
    whiteboard.&nbsp; I make sure to put a permanent marker closest to the
    board.&nbsp; Attention to detail is important.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    hehehe..<br>
    <br>
    I work for a whiteboard company - can I have your account? :)<br>
  • Reggie 2005-09-20 16:21
    You guys and your scary applicants are freaking me out. It's as if I should have a sign in my office that reads "Please don't shoot your potential employer."
  • Dan 2005-09-20 17:26
    <P>It should be a requirement for all applicants to surrender their firearms at the door.</P>
    <P>Maybe their should be metal detectors?</P>
  • Anonymous Bastard 2005-09-20 18:04
    funk dat... I work with a bunch of old ladies and they are nosy/inconsiderate as hell... props on the toss!
  • csrster 2005-09-21 03:33
    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:

    <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">“What kind of tree/animal would you be?”</p>
    <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
    </p>
    <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
    <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">I would be a bannana tree...for obvious reasons.</p>
    <br>
    <br>
    A monkey, coz, y'know, monkey-sex. <br>
  • csrster 2005-09-21 03:34
    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:

    <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">I would be a bannana tree...for obvious reasons.
    </p>
    <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
    <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">@Scaredy Cat...you're sick and need to seek professional help.</p>
    <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
    <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">But seriously, I thought about that animal/tree question and it's very disturbing.</p>
    <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
    <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">You can take any
    animal or tree and it will inevitably end up being a
    sick/perverted/psychotic response. Think about a horse, sheep, or
    oyster.</p>
    <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
    <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">And if it's not perverted and disgusting, it has a negative connotation. Think about a turtle, ape, or venus fly trap.</p>
    <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
    <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Either way, you look bad.</p>
    <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">&nbsp;</p>
    <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">I think the question is stupid.</p>
    <br>
    <br>
    Maybe that's the point of the test - to see how you respond to a stupid question.<br>
  • brazzy 2005-09-21 06:47
    UncleMidriff:
    brazzy:
    <br>
    Anonymous:
    <br>
    You can go far if you put the effort in, and care about your
    appearance. As vain as it seems, it's true. The corporate world, where
    people earn what they're worth, will seldom give a shit if you can't
    put on a suit.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    True except that part of "earn what they're worth", though of course
    "worth" lies in the eye of the beholder.&nbsp; Besides, to "go far" in
    that world, wearing a suit is only the first step. Next comes
    ass-kissing and backstabbing. I don't want to go down that road, so why
    should I even make the first step?<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    I had no idea that those who willingly wear a suit are barreling down
    the path to moral destruction.&nbsp; <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    If they wear something they'd rather not for the sole reason to "go
    far" in the business world they're compromising their individuality for
    ambition. Sure, it's a very small step, but not essentially different
    from kissing up to an incompetent asshole for the sake of your career.<br>
    <br>
    UncleMidriff:
    <br>
    The business world is how it is; you can whine, bitch, moan, and gripe
    about it all you like, but doing so will most likely change
    nothing.&nbsp; If the clothing you wear is really such a moral issue
    with you and you have the moral courage to stand up to employers in the
    name of wearing blue jeans to work, then I admire you.&nbsp; Keep
    fighting the good fight.&nbsp; But don't try to imply that those of us
    who genuinely just don't give a crap whether we're in blue jeans or in
    a suit are somehow morally deficient.&nbsp; And if you do, please
    realize how much like "them" (the suit wearers who judge interview
    candidates strictly on what they're wearing) doing so makes you<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    I may have overstated my case, and you misunderstood my stance. I'm
    willing to dress nicely when the situation warrants it. But I do not
    wear ties, because they're an idiotic accessory. In the five or so job
    interviews I've been in, this has not been a problem as far as I can
    tell: two were successful.&nbsp; <br>
    <br>
    I will also not wear long pants and a jacket in sweltering heat, which
    is beyond idiocy. I&nbsp; know that mass idiocy is the norm. Fun fact:
    this summer the Japanese government has run a big campaign (christened
    "Cool Biz") to make office workers stop wearing full suits in midsummer
    and waste insane amounts of power on air conditioning to make it
    bearable. To sell the idea to all the little salarymen deathly afraid
    to stand out by violating conventions, the prime minister has shown up
    without tie and jacket at most occasions throughout the summer.<br>
    <br>
  • Richard Nixon 2005-09-21 12:26
    brazzy:

    If they wear something they'd rather not for the sole reason to "go
    far" in the business world they're compromising their individuality for
    ambition. Sure, it's a very small step, but not essentially different
    from kissing up to an incompetent asshole for the sake of your career.
    <br>
    <br>
    And what's wrong with compromising to make more money or move up to a
    job you'd enjoy more? You sound pretty young so you probably don't have
    children to provide for so perhaps your perspective is a bit different
    - I find a little loss of individuality quite a slight loss in
    comparison to feeding my children, letting them have their pick of
    colleges, and retiring to a fund large enough to travel the world and
    never worry.<br>
  • Josh 2005-09-21 16:14
    >>> I was completely focused on trying to concentrate on a staticky long distance call to a non-native-English speaker, and she was physically leaning on me to see this picture, after I had told her I was interviewing someone.

    Why no pimp-slap?
    Way to rule your cubicle with an iron fist, Ming!
  • Ray 2005-09-21 17:34
    <P>People don't pimp-slap as much as they used to.</P>
    <P>Such a shame.</P>
  • Yojimbo 2005-09-21 19:54
    RFlowers:
    <p>I would like to throw my 0010 cents in on the topic of hours at work. Myself, I would <strong>not</strong>
    like to work 60+ hours, although I could do it every once in a while. I
    am a 40 hour guy, and&nbsp;I know this hurts my career overall. I'm
    willing to make the trade-off and I have made decisions fully aware of
    the consequences. I've told others (go-getters) this, and they think
    I'm a fool. But these guys don't have families, not many friends, and
    their apartments are basically cubicles anyway. (They don't own their
    own home; maybe at retirement.) I envy the money they make, but I made
    my decision being aware what I was missing.</p>
    <p>That being said, there do seem to be a few that "have it all," but maybe it just seems that way. </p>
    <br>
    <br>
    Okay.&nbsp; Let's make something really clear here.&nbsp; YOU are the
    sane one.&nbsp; Not the guys (or women) who spend 60+ hours a week at
    work.&nbsp;&nbsp; And honestly, you're not missing anything, unless
    having more "stuff" and less life in which to enjoy the stuff is
    something to be missed.&nbsp;&nbsp; Or perhaps not knowing who your
    spouse is or your kids if you have them, or are going to have
    them.&nbsp; And of course, you know that if not now - if you lack the
    experience now - that doesn't mean that you can't strike out on your
    own later with similiarly minded people. <br>
    <br>
    Please don't think you're missing anything.&nbsp;&nbsp; You made the
    right decision, but you're still letting the wrong way of thinking
    create guilt... and that tends to destroy the enjoyment you could have
    in the rightness of your decision.&nbsp;&nbsp; Read on, if you will. ;)<br>
    <br>
    Work is what one does in order to afford one's life.&nbsp;&nbsp; Work
    ISN'T your life.&nbsp;&nbsp; It was never meant to be.&nbsp;&nbsp; We
    have all this influence from the Puritans and their work ethic; we have
    people who say proudly that they "never missed a day of work in their
    lives"&nbsp; or that they "never call in sick, they always get to work"
    and they're all so chuffed with themselves about something that is, to
    my eyes, incredibly sad and pathetic.<br>
    <br>
    Never missed a day of work?&nbsp;&nbsp; And when you die, is that going
    to comfort you as your family who are all essentially strangers (if
    indeed they haven't left long ago) file into the room to say good-bye? <br>
    <br>
    Never took a sick day?&nbsp;&nbsp; Gee, thanks, jerk -- by going in
    sick, you made MY spouse sick and then I got it.&nbsp;&nbsp; Take the
    damn sick day, that's what they're THERE FOR.<br>
    <br>
    As for working 60 hours a week, with 2-3 weeks off a year.<br>
    <br>
    No way -- that's not the way to achieve increased
    productively.&nbsp;&nbsp; Look at Europe.&nbsp; There are countries in
    which people work 35 hour weeks, often 4 day work weeks, and the
    standard is 6-8 weeks off a year, and that is where you
    START.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; People understand that when they're at work,
    they're working, and they work HARD.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>
    <br>
    But it's understood that work, even enjoyable work, is NOT your
    life.&nbsp; It's what you do to AFFORD your life and have things you
    want to have.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is no confusion between the two.<br>
    <br>
    Working 60 hours a week?&nbsp; Does that ensure that the employee will
    actually WORK more hours?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; All sorts of studies show
    that when you put someone in a work environment where they work so many
    hours that work IS their life, all their social outlets will occur at
    work.&nbsp; The typical chat around the watercooler, at the photocopy
    machine, during lunch, on the phone, etc.&nbsp; People DON'T actually
    work more.&nbsp; They DON'T typically get more done.&nbsp;&nbsp;
    They're just *there* more hours.<br>
    <br>
    Wouldn't you rather have people work their asses off during the hours
    they are there.. really work hard and produce -- and then leave and
    enjoy their lives -- then come back, and work hard again.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>
    <br>
    That's balance.<br>
    <br>
    So, Mr./Ms. Flowers -- you're the one who has it right.&nbsp; It's a
    shame that you seem a bit guilty over it, and it's an even worse shame
    that we're so messed up in this particular society that we've confused
    productivety with "hours present" -- I wonder how long the moronic
    puritan work ethic is going to continue to rob people people of their
    lives, while at the same time masquerading as "the way to really get
    things done."<br>
    <br>
    I hope, I truly hope, that you're able to find a job that will let you
    be *very* productive 35-40 hours a week, 40-44 weeks a year -- so you
    can work hard and accomplish a great deal when you're at work -- in a
    place where people don't waste time chatting, taking extended trips to
    get hot water for coffee, coming in late, doing all the things that
    employees who work too many hours *always* do.&nbsp;&nbsp; That you
    find a place where you can show what you can do, do it in a reasonable
    period of time, afford the life you want, and at the same time know
    (and have the people around you know) that life isn't what you do for
    work -- it's what you do AFTER work.<br>
    <br>
    Something that adds to this problem; the number of people in charge who
    have damaged their lives so badly that their only outlet is work.&nbsp;
    And since it's that way for THEM... it's that way for their
    employees.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you find a boss or company owner who
    understands that life is not what you do at work, who values
    tele-commuting (I know that I get *much* more done in 6 hours in my
    home office than I ever did in 12 hours at the office and the same is
    true for my spouse) and values the lives of his or her employees, then
    you WILL be able to have it all.<br>
    <br>
    And you know what?&nbsp; If you don't find that..&nbsp;&nbsp; perhaps
    in time you'll create it yourself.&nbsp; The more people who understand
    that this is reality, the less "We are proud that we work 6 days a week
    and never see our families and this is the only way to be productive"
    idiots we'll have...&nbsp; not idiots, misguided sad people who
    unfortunately poison everyone and everything around them.<br>
    <br>
    Good luck -- and when you do create your own business, consulting or
    otherwise, try to remember this and treat your employees
    accordingly.&nbsp;&nbsp; Most (not all) but most will respond
    appropriately and work harder.&nbsp; Those who don't are people you
    don't want working for you -- they're the type who need the 60 hour
    (but only really work the minimum to avoid getting let go) work week in
    order to feel that they're "doing something" and will take advantage if
    they're actually valued as human beings.<br>
    <br>
    It's going to be a long transition.<br>
  • Yojimbo 2005-09-21 20:23
    dubwai:
    <p>
    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:
    I interviewed with the President, who was quite
    distracted while talking to me, what with all the email and phone calls
    that he had to read/take.<br>
    <br>Wow, that's the kind of situation where I'd ask if there was a better time for me to come back.&nbsp; If I wanted to work there.<br><br>I
    was doing a telephone interview from my cube just last week when a
    cow-orker came into my cube and started looking at some old pictures I
    have.&nbsp; I turned briefly and angrily hissed "I'm doing a phone
    interview!" at her.&nbsp; She happily announced "That's OK, I won't
    talk to you" and continued leaning over me to look at the pictures!<br><br>I
    was majorly pissed.&nbsp; I snatched the photo she was looking at (it
    was held to the cube bookshelf by a magnet) and flung it violently from
    my cube.&nbsp; I was so flustered by the rudeness of the interruption
    that even after apologizing to the candidate, I still found it hard to
    concentrate for about the next five minutes.&nbsp; And afterward, she
    was mad at me!&nbsp; Now, a 20-something kid, I'd understand the total
    lack of manners and common sense.&nbsp; But a 50-year-old woman?&nbsp;
    WTF?<br><br>I haven't even bothered to go looking for the picture yet.<br>
    </p>
    <p>Dude, sorry but that makes you seem like a&nbsp;total psycho.</p>
    <br>
    <br>
    No, he doesn't.<br>
    <br>
    He sounds like he actually cared about the interview he was
    conducting.&nbsp; Do you want to be on the other end of a phone
    interview in which the guy or gal is clearly not paying
    attention?&nbsp;&nbsp; Do you want to try to interview someone while
    someone else is intruding into your personal space -- not that most
    people get that much of it, a cubicle isn't exactly a palatial office
    suite.&nbsp;&nbsp; Trying to concentrate on the interview in order to
    be fair to the person being interviewed while having someone rummage
    through your pictures would be incredibly distracting.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>
    <br>
    Asking once for the person to leave is fine.&nbsp;&nbsp; If one doesn't
    have the ettiquette to understand that "hey, he's conducting an
    interview.... Interview... you know, the thing where someone's
    financial fate might be on the line?&nbsp;&nbsp; Where their employment
    status is being determined?&nbsp;&nbsp; That kind of important life
    activity... so maybe you *shouldn't* bother the guy when he's trying to
    conduct the interview?"&nbsp;&nbsp; If the person lacks the etiquette
    or sensitivity to get not LEAN OVER him while he's trying to conduct an
    interview, it's not surprising the guy got tense about it.<br>
    <br>
    That doesn't make him sound like a psycho at all.<br>
    <br>
    That much said -- I might have said "give me a moment, please" to the
    person on the phone, put them on hold, turned to the person invading my
    space, and said something like "Hey, I'm doing an interview now and
    trying to concentrate.&nbsp; Do you think you could come back later or
    when I'm not working to look at the photos?"&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Of
    course, the atmosphere at work has a lot to do with it.&nbsp;&nbsp; If
    it's full of people who lack basic understanding, then no wonder the
    interviewer got angry.&nbsp;&nbsp; I can image how irritated I'd get if
    I made it clear to someone that I wanted them to get out of my space
    because I was working and needed to concentrate and they said cheerily
    "No problem, I won't talk to you" --&nbsp; argh, just the sort of
    cluelessness that makes one throw a photo across the room. ;)<br>
    <br>
  • Ralph 2005-09-21 21:44
    Yojimbo:
    <br>
    That doesn't make him sound like a psycho at all.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Uh, yeah, <span style="font-style: italic;">it does</span>.<br>
    <br>
    Sounds like the type of person who bursts in with a semi-automatic rifle.<br>
  • Mike 2005-09-21 21:54
    What's really scary is that people like Yojimbo are so trusting.<br>
    <br>
    Interviewees (particularly VB.NET programmers) are some real loose cannons who need to be dealt with at a distance.<br>
    <br>
    It only takes a second for one of them to snap...<br>
  • Magic Duck 2005-09-22 04:58
    <P>
    Anonymous:
    <BR>Uh, yeah, <SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic">it does</SPAN>.<BR><BR>Sounds like the type of person who bursts in with a semi-automatic rifle.<BR>
    </P>
    <P>No. People, who get angry and show it, have working valves that let's their steams get out before it's too late. I would be more worried about the silent ones who never seem to get annoyed or angry about anything even when provocated. They are more likely to cross the final line one day.</P>
  • Richard Nixon 2005-09-22 09:28
    Magic Duck:
    <p>
    Anonymous:
    <br>Uh, yeah, <span style="font-style: italic;">it does</span>.<br><br>Sounds like the type of person who bursts in with a semi-automatic rifle.<br>
    </p>
    <p>No. People, who get angry and show it, have working valves that
    let's their steams get out before it's too late. I would be more
    worried about the silent ones who never seem to get annoyed or angry
    about anything even when provocated. They are more likely to cross the
    final line one day.</p>
    <br>
    <br>
    Any studies to back that claim up? Some people have hobbies outside of
    work that let them release stress. And it's not as though work should
    be stressful, most people don't work in fields where it is life or
    death. Maybe those people who aren't getting angry realize that it's
    just work.<br>
  • joodie 2005-09-22 13:35
    Anonymous:
    I am a mid-level manager who is about to screen some potential
    candidates. I agree with a lot of what CPound has said (although not
    all) and have come up with a series of questions to ask my future
    employees. I think this will help weed out the bad ones. Let me know
    what you think. <br>
    <br>
    (snip)<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    I find your ideas intruiging and wish to subscribe to your newsletter :)<br>
  • SaneGuy 2005-09-23 00:45
    Since we're on the topic of "crazy" programmers...let me know what you think about this.<br>
    <br>
    Back in the late 90's, I was working with a recruiting company and one
    lady in particular. She was really nice and everything and seemed like
    the type of recruiter who would follow through. So I'm at home one day,
    and I hear her leaving a message on my answering machine. After she
    leaves the message, a couple minutes go by, as I consider the message
    she left about a particular position. I call her back up to talk to her
    about it, and the first thing she says is, "Wow! That was <span style="font-style: italic;">fast</span>. Do you screen your calls or something?" I answer "Yeah, sometimes" and she responds with "Oh man, that's <span style="font-style: italic;">creepy</span>."
    Then there's this awkward silence on her part. I try to jumpstart the
    conversation because I really want to discuss the position. We
    eventually get past the whole "screening" thing and at the very end of
    the call (just when I think things are cool) she says "You know,
    actually I don't think you're the right candidate for the position.
    I'll keep looking for you." I knew then and there that I would never
    hear from this recruiter again. And I'm 100% sure it was due to my
    "creepy" screening tactics.<br>
    <br>
    What do you guys think about this?<br>
  • Jon Limjap 2005-09-23 03:21
    Anonymous:
    Since we're on the topic of "crazy" programmers...let me know what you think about this.<br>
    <br>
    Back in the late 90's, I was working with a recruiting company and one
    lady in particular. She was really nice and everything and seemed like
    the type of recruiter who would follow through. So I'm at home one day,
    and I hear her leaving a message on my answering machine. After she
    leaves the message, a couple minutes go by, as I consider the message
    she left about a particular position. I call her back up to talk to her
    about it, and the first thing she says is, "Wow! That was <span style="font-style: italic;">fast</span>. Do you screen your calls or something?" I answer "Yeah, sometimes" and she responds with "Oh man, that's <span style="font-style: italic;">creepy</span>."
    Then there's this awkward silence on her part. I try to jumpstart the
    conversation because I really want to discuss the position. We
    eventually get past the whole "screening" thing and at the very end of
    the call (just when I think things are cool) she says "You know,
    actually I don't think you're the right candidate for the position.
    I'll keep looking for you." I knew then and there that I would never
    hear from this recruiter again. And I'm 100% sure it was due to my
    "creepy" screening tactics.<br>
    <br>
    What do you guys think about this?<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    I guess she really finds it creepy that there are people who let their
    answering machines take their calls and listen in without picking up
    the phone. To a lot of people that really feels like screening.<br>
    <br>
    Can't blame you for being disappointed of her, but neither can I blame her for the feeling of being "screened."<br>
  • Richard Nixon 2005-09-23 09:17
    Jon Limjap:
    I guess she really finds it creepy that there are people who let their
    answering machines take their calls and listen in without picking up
    the phone. To a lot of people that really feels like screening.
    <br>
    <br>
    That is screening. The question is: why does someone find that "creepy"? I've always found it to be a common practice.<br>
  • ammoQ 2005-09-23 11:04
    Anonymous:
    <br>
    And I'm 100% sure it was due to my
    "creepy" screening tactics.<br>
    <br>
    What do you guys think about this?<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    IMO there is nothing wrong about this "creepy screening". Sometimes you
    just have better things to do than dropping whatever you have in your
    hand and running to the phone, just to hear "sorry, wrong number". But
    maybe they were looking for someone who would live, eat and sleep with
    his cell phone in range, always ready to take an important call.<br>
  • emptyset 2005-09-23 11:20
    <P>
    ammoQ:
    IMO there is nothing wrong about this "creepy screening". Sometimes you just have better things to do than dropping whatever you have in your hand and running to the phone, just to hear "sorry, wrong number". But maybe they were looking for someone who would live, eat and sleep with his cell phone in range, always ready to take an important call.<BR>
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>it's kind of&nbsp;rude ask about the circumstances surrounding why somebody returned a phone call quickly.&nbsp; would she have thought it creepy if he had said "i was taking a dump, didn't feel like talking to you during that?"</FONT></P>
  • UncleMidriff 2005-09-23 11:35
    Anonymous:
    Since we're on the topic of "crazy" programmers...let me know what you think about this.<br>
    <br>
    Back in the late 90's, I was working with a recruiting company and one
    lady in particular. She was really nice and everything and seemed like
    the type of recruiter who would follow through. So I'm at home one day,
    and I hear her leaving a message on my answering machine. After she
    leaves the message, a couple minutes go by, as I consider the message
    she left about a particular position. I call her back up to talk to her
    about it, and the first thing she says is, "Wow! That was <span style="font-style: italic;">fast</span>. Do you screen your calls or something?" I answer "Yeah, sometimes" and she responds with "Oh man, that's <span style="font-style: italic;">creepy</span>."
    Then there's this awkward silence on her part. I try to jumpstart the
    conversation because I really want to discuss the position. We
    eventually get past the whole "screening" thing and at the very end of
    the call (just when I think things are cool) she says "You know,
    actually I don't think you're the right candidate for the position.
    I'll keep looking for you." I knew then and there that I would never
    hear from this recruiter again. And I'm 100% sure it was due to my
    "creepy" screening tactics.<br>
    <br>
    What do you guys think about this?<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    When I had an answering machine I screened my calls all the time.&nbsp;
    I didn't and I still don't see a problem with it.&nbsp; However, after
    getting the kind of reaction that you're describing here more than a
    few times, I found it's easier to make up an excuse than it is to waste
    5 or so minutes explaining to the person that, yes, you screen your
    calls, no, that doesn't make you a freak, and no, it doesn't mean you
    don't think very highly of them.&nbsp; Instead, just tell them
    something like, "Sorry, I just missed your call," or, "I was in the
    other room and couldn't make it to the phone in time," or, "Sorry,
    hearing *ring* doesn't give me enough information to decide whether or
    not I want to stop the important things I'm doing to respond to what
    might very well be a telemarketer or someone with nothing important to
    say that I dislike talking to, as is obviously not the case with
    you.&nbsp; I apologize for not having your keen powers of
    perception.&nbsp; Yes, I'm being sarcastic, you stupid bitch."...wait,
    scratch that last part.<br>
  • Erik 2005-09-23 12:01
    I for one doesn't get this at all.<br>
    <br>
    I mean, I do get what you mean, these people were not "within the
    box."  But I also get another thing.  This topic is kind of
    symptomatic to the rest of the postings on this site.  Obviously
    IT-recruiters are unable to recruit the right people for the job, or
    there would be no posts on this site...<br>
    <br>
    Or in other words, I'm sure the Jed's and others of this site all wore
    a business suit to their interview, knew how to shake hands, and not to
    get overly excited.  You obviously need to look with better eyes
    than that.  If you go for appearances only, then yeah, you'll hire
    Jed.<br>
    <br>
    I always thought companies wanted to hire people that could do the job,
    and as far as I've been able to tell, none of the people interviewed in
    these scenarios were intervieweing for a position as
    sales-representatives, CEO's, or any other position where appearances
    mattered...<br>
    <br>
    I do understand that you need to hire people with some skills for
    group-work, but I am also fully aware it usually will have to be a
    compromise.  Some of the most brilliant people out there have
    strange habits, even problems cooperating with other people, and they
    will end up at companies that can harbor them, probably earning these
    companies huge ammounts of money...<br>
    <br>
    I'd say every single one of these interviews (even Nah'mean) rather
    points to faliure in the companies ability to look past appearances and
    extract what really matters: the applicants ability to get the job done.<br>
    <br>
    So what if Nah'mean wont be fun to be around on the coffee break? 
    Will he be able to finish the task in time at required quality or
    not?  So what if he's got a cocky attitude?  Does his
    attitude stand up to his skills?<br>
    <br>
    On a side note:  I'm sure there are articles describing
    experiments where people have been made to act in all kinds of strange
    and irratic ways when faced with a board of 5-10 people there to
    examine them... and I'm sure the Anglo-Saxon working environment, and
    relations to your boss is equivalent to that situation as well, so it
    probably reflects the real environment the applicant will be working in
    very well...  Can't say I'm dying to go work in US or UK any time
    soon... Nah'mean?<br>
    <br>
  • Richard Nixon 2005-09-23 13:30
    Anonymous:
    I for one doesn't get this at all.<br>
    <br>
    I mean, I do get what you mean, these people were not "within the
    box."&nbsp; But I also get another thing.&nbsp; This topic is kind of
    symptomatic to the rest of the postings on this site.&nbsp; Obviously
    IT-recruiters are unable to recruit the right people for the job, or
    there would be no posts on this site...<br>
    <br>
    Or in other words, I'm sure the Jed's and others of this site all wore
    a business suit to their interview, knew how to shake hands, and not to
    get overly excited.&nbsp; You obviously need to look with better eyes
    than that.&nbsp; If you go for appearances only, then yeah, you'll hire
    Jed.<br>
    <br>
    I always thought companies wanted to hire people that could do the job,
    and as far as I've been able to tell, none of the people interviewed in
    these scenarios were intervieweing for a position as
    sales-representatives, CEO's, or any other position where appearances
    mattered...<br>
    <br>
    I do understand that you need to hire people with some skills for
    group-work, but I am also fully aware it usually will have to be a
    compromise.&nbsp; Some of the most brilliant people out there have
    strange habits, even problems cooperating with other people, and they
    will end up at companies that can harbor them, probably earning these
    companies huge ammounts of money...<br>
    <br>
    I'd say every single one of these interviews (even Nah'mean) rather
    points to faliure in the companies ability to look past appearances and
    extract what really matters: the applicants ability to get the job done.<br>
    <br>
    So what if Nah'mean wont be fun to be around on the coffee break?&nbsp;
    Will he be able to finish the task in time at required quality or
    not?&nbsp; So what if he's got a cocky attitude?&nbsp; Does his
    attitude stand up to his skills?<br>
    <br>
    On a side note:&nbsp; I'm sure there are articles describing
    experiments where people have been made to act in all kinds of strange
    and irratic ways when faced with a board of 5-10 people there to
    examine them... and I'm sure the Anglo-Saxon working environment, and
    relations to your boss is equivalent to that situation as well, so it
    probably reflects the real environment the applicant will be working in
    very well...&nbsp; Can't say I'm dying to go work in US or UK any time
    soon... Nah'mean?<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    That "cocky attitude" is going to hurt the morale of all those he
    interacts with. And, unless this programming position involves
    completely solo work [doubtful] then he will be interacting with
    others. This will have an impact. <br>
    <br>
    Furthermore, people that can't conform to simple conventions that are
    expected of them for a business setting [like dressing a certain way]
    are more likely to make their own rules. They may not have a picture of
    the entire business and think that doing something they are assigned is
    not important and choose not to do it. Sloppy attire reflects attitude.<br>
  • emptyset 2005-09-23 13:51
    <P>
    Richard Nixon:
    Furthermore, people that can't conform to simple conventions that are expected of them for a business setting [like dressing a certain way] are more likely to make their own rules.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>what a crime.</FONT></P>
    <P>
    Richard Nixon:
    Sloppy attire reflects attitude.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>false.</FONT></P>
  • Richard Nixon 2005-09-23 15:05
    emptyset:
    <p>
    Richard Nixon:
    Furthermore,
    people that can't conform to simple conventions that are expected of
    them for a business setting [like dressing a certain way] are more
    likely to make their own rules.
    </p>
    <p><font face="Courier New" size="2">what a crime.</font></p>
    <p>
    Richard Nixon:
    Sloppy attire reflects attitude.
    </p>
    <p><font face="Courier New" size="2">false.</font></p>
    <br>
    <br>
    A crime? No - but if I am paying you, I expect you to take orders. <br>
    <br>
    And no, that's not false. I overstated the fact and should have said, "Sloppy attire often reflects a poor attitude."<br>
    <br>
    I get the feeling that whatever I post, you're going to disagree with
    simply because you're so immature. Could you instead regale me with
    stories of great arguments that you've had on the Internet? As you may
    know, I find those stories fascinating.<br>
    <br>
    Take care!<br>
  • Mikey 2005-09-23 16:21
    <P>
    Richard Nixon:
    A crime? No - but if I am paying you, I expect you to take orders.
    </P>
    <P>Taking orders will only last so long...then the guy <EM>snaps</EM> one day.</P>
  • emptyset 2005-09-23 16:23
    <P>
    Richard Nixon:
    A crime? No - but if I am paying you, I expect you to take orders.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>personally, i'd prefer to have people work for me that could make the best decisions on what needs to get done independently.&nbsp; they'd also get bonus points for pointing out inefficiencies and double their score if they propose alternate plans to improve the business.&nbsp; sure, you can run a great business on drones and that works well for certain industries, but for software development, it seems like a good idea to pay attention to the developers instead of telling to do arbitrary and stupid things.</FONT></P>
    <P>
    Richard Nixon:
    And no, that's not false. I overstated the fact and should have said, "Sloppy attire often reflects a poor attitude."
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>yes, you're too insecure to admit you made a simple mistake.&nbsp; it's ok, it happens to the best of us.</FONT></P>
    <P>
    Richard Nixon:
    I get the feeling that whatever I post, you're going to disagree with simply because you're so immature.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>that's so not true!</FONT></P>
  • Richard Nixon 2005-09-23 17:01
    emptyset:
    <p>
    Richard Nixon:
    A crime? No - but if I am paying you, I expect you to take orders.
    </p>
    <p><font face="Courier New" size="2">personally, i'd prefer to have
    people work for me that could make the best decisions on what needs to
    get done independently.&nbsp; they'd also get bonus points for pointing
    out inefficiencies and double their score if they propose alternate
    plans to improve the business.&nbsp; sure, you can run a great business
    on drones and that works well for certain industries, but for software
    development, it seems like a good idea to pay attention to the
    developers instead of telling to do arbitrary and stupid things.</font></p>
    <p>
    Richard Nixon:
    And no, that's not false. I overstated
    the fact and should have said, "Sloppy attire often reflects a poor
    attitude."
    </p>
    <p><font face="Courier New" size="2">yes, you're too insecure to admit you made a simple mistake.&nbsp; it's ok, it happens to the best of us.</font></p>
    <p>
    Richard Nixon:
    I get the feeling that whatever I post,
    you're going to disagree with simply because you're so immature.
    </p>
    <p><font face="Courier New" size="2">that's so not true!</font></p>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Isn't saying "I overstated the fact" acknowledging that their was a mistake in my wording? <br>
    <br>
    As for your diatribe on what you want out of software developers - yes,
    I want people who will speak up when they think there is a better way.
    On that note, I want people who understand the chain of command and
    that there are certain things you do just because that's the way things
    work. Wearing shorts and a dirty t-shirt to an interview tells me that
    someone doesn't understand some basic conventions. What else do they
    fail to grasp?<br>
  • Sam 2005-09-23 17:04
    It would be cool to refer to yourself in the third person in an interview.
  • emptyset 2005-09-23 17:27
    <P>
    Richard Nixon:
    As for your diatribe on what you want out of software developers - yes, I want people who will speak up when they think there is a better way. On that note, I want people who understand the chain of command and that there are certain things you do just because that's the way things work. Wearing shorts and a dirty t-shirt to an interview tells me that someone doesn't understand some basic conventions. What else do they fail to grasp?
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>i think all conventions suck.&nbsp; especially dragon*con.</FONT></P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>the chain of command&nbsp;will soon be an&nbsp;obsolete business concept, anyway.&nbsp; the only reason it's still around is because for whatever reason, intelligent monkeys have an affinity for taxonomy.&nbsp; while that was pretty useful to get us all out of the trees and into cities, this era must come to an end if we're to advance as a species.&nbsp; it could start by dropping useless conventions that no longer apply in the modern world.</FONT></P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>the day we stop to listen to the wino in the park is the day we grow and move forward as a civilization.&nbsp; taxonomy is literally causing us to de-evolve, driving us into smaller and smaller boxes.&nbsp; "i'm a member of this box.&nbsp; i drive around in this box.&nbsp; the box i live in is located in this box."&nbsp; change this mentality, and we'll all see some real progress.</FONT></P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>a convention like "i do what the boss tells me to do, no matter what" should be replaced with "i'm cooperating with this group of people to make us all succeed - how do i best contribute myself to make this happen?"&nbsp; the&nbsp;burden of wearing a tie to impress someone rests entirely with the observer "i am going to let my opinion of this man be governed by the noose around his neck or the quality of his cufflinks, or i am going to make the best decision?"</FONT></P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>about once a week, i talk to this guy named copper john.&nbsp; he's a crackhead that wanders around my neighborhood and makes jewlery out of thrown out copper wire he finds on the street.&nbsp; most people think people like him should be shot on sight.&nbsp; they feel like he's a blight on their boxes.&nbsp; what they don't realize is that they can learn from copper john what it is like to try and live simply in an urban environment.&nbsp; he has wisdom and knowledge that most people will never acquire based on his situation.&nbsp; most people wouldn't argue all copies of burrough's _junky_ should be destroyed.&nbsp;&nbsp;he offers a compelling account of what it's like to be a heroin addict, and this can be understood without jabbing a needle in your arm.</FONT></P>
  • Thomas 2005-09-23 17:59
    <P>"Sloppy attire often reflects a poor attitude."</P>
    <P>How do you know that ? Do you have statistics ? What criterion do you use ? Wearing shorts ? Wearing T-Shirts ? What level of sloppiness translates into a poor attitude ? Are clean T-Shirts OK or are all T-Shirts bad ? If they are bad, exactly how much is that reflected in the attitude ? What degree of "insubordination" or "subversion" does the wearing of a T-Shirt translates into at work ? If you have 2&nbsp; programmers, and both are rather good , but one can write sophisticated algorithms involving recursion , dynamic programming, multithreading and the other cannot, but could learn with time&nbsp;, will you hire the least skilled of the two because of his clothing ? Do you have any statistics as to the success of this strategy when compared to the opposite strategy? </P>
    <P>Also, concerning what you said about accepting to abandon a part of your individuality to feed your children, enable them to choose their college&nbsp;and have good time when you retire, I cannot but agree about the "feeding your children" part. If your children are in danger of starving, then I 'd even justify that you steal, let alone abandon a part of your individuality. I have some reserves about the two other items, though. I think that being present for your children, following their education closely, making up for the shortcomings of the teachers at school when necessary, are a much better way to ensure that they will go to a good college and be successful there. About retirement, frankly I find your argument invalid.&nbsp;I care for my parents who are old, and I know the state of their health would not allow them to travel extensively : My father has had a triple&nbsp;coronary&nbsp;artery bypass surgery, and suffers from congestive heart failure, and my mother has diabetes and osteoporosis.(her bones are extremely fragile now). How do you know you'll still be healthy (if alive at all), when retirement age comes, so you can profit from your savings ?</P>
    <P>&nbsp;</P>
  • emptyset 2005-09-23 18:05
    <P>
    Anonymous:
    How do you know you'll still be healthy (if alive at all), when retirement age comes, so you can profit from your savings ?
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>retirement is such a lie.&nbsp; i want to retire 7-8 times in my life, for shorter time periods.&nbsp; i'd be an idiot to wait until 65 and then try to climb mount kilimanjaro.</FONT></P>
  • Richard Nixon 2005-09-23 19:05
    Anonymous:
    <p>"Sloppy attire often reflects a poor attitude."</p>
    <p>How do you know that ? Do you have statistics ? What criterion do
    you use ? Wearing shorts ? Wearing T-Shirts ? What level of sloppiness
    translates into a poor attitude ? Are clean T-Shirts OK or are all
    T-Shirts bad ? If they are bad, exactly how much is that reflected in
    the attitude ? What degree of "insubordination" or "subversion" does
    the wearing of a T-Shirt translates into at work ? If you have 2&nbsp;
    programmers, and both are rather good , but one can write sophisticated
    algorithms involving recursion , dynamic programming, multithreading
    and the other cannot, but could learn with time&nbsp;, will you hire
    the least skilled of the two because of his clothing ? Do you have any
    statistics as to the success of this strategy when compared to the
    opposite strategy? </p>
    <p>Also, concerning what you said about accepting to abandon a part of
    your individuality to feed your children, enable them to choose their
    college&nbsp;and have good time when you retire, I cannot but agree
    about the "feeding your children" part. If your children are in danger
    of starving, then I 'd even justify that you steal, let alone abandon a
    part of your individuality. I have some reserves about the two other
    items, though. I think that being present for your children, following
    their education closely, making up for the shortcomings of the teachers
    at school when necessary, are a much better way to ensure that they
    will go to a good college and be successful there. About retirement,
    frankly I find your argument invalid.&nbsp;I care for my parents who
    are old, and I know the state of their health would not allow them to
    travel extensively : My father has had a
    triple&nbsp;coronary&nbsp;artery bypass surgery, and suffers from
    congestive heart failure, and my mother has diabetes and
    osteoporosis.(her bones are extremely fragile now). How do you know
    you'll still be healthy (if alive at all), when retirement age comes,
    so you can profit from your savings ?</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    It's not my fault your father has genetic defects and a penchant for cheeseburgers.<br>
    <br>
    By your "logic", there's no reason to ever fill up the gas tank in your
    car. Just put enough in it to get to where you're going right now.
    You're invalid, moron.<br>
  • Tack 2005-09-23 19:55
    emptyset:
    <font face="Courier New" size="2">the chain of command will soon be an obsolete business concept, anyway.</font>
    <br>
    <br>
    Absolutely wrong. It's only going to get worse. People are now more
    than ever on an ego trip to "feel like they're somebody". They want to
    be tiny little dictators with total control over 4-5 people (their
    immediate workgroup). It's really sad to see these "managers of men"
    abuse those under them. And it's all done just to feel important. So
    there will always be a chain of command, with wannabe dictators running
    the show (or thinking that they do).<br>

    <p>
    emptyset:
    <font face="Courier New" size="2">the day we stop to listen to the wino in the park is the day we grow and move forward as a civilization.</font>
    <br>
    </p>
    <p>I have complete sympathy for the downtrodden. But I wouldn't elevate
    the "wino" to the wise-and-honored status of intellectual guru. If he was so wise, why is he a drunkard in the park?<br>
    </p>
    <p>
    emptyset:
    <font face="Courier New" size="2">about once
    a week, i talk to this guy named copper john.  he's a crackhead
    that wanders around my neighborhood and makes jewlery out of thrown out
    copper wire he finds on the street.  most people think people like
    him should be shot on sight.  they feel like he's a blight on
    their boxes.  what they don't realize is that they can learn from
    copper john what it is like to try and live simply in an urban
    environment.  he has wisdom and knowledge that most people will
    never acquire based on his situation.  most people wouldn't argue
    all copies of burrough's _junky_ should be destroyed.  he
    offers a compelling account of what it's like to be a heroin addict,
    and this can be understood without jabbing a needle in your arm.</font>
    <br>
    </p>
    <p>You are using drunks and crackheads as your rolemodels. Do I even have to comment on this?<br>
    </p>
  • Mizzie 2005-09-23 19:58
    You are all communists! Every one!<br>
  • Thomas 2005-09-24 07:34
    <P>
    Richard Nixon:
    <BR>It's not my fault your father has genetic defects and a penchant for cheeseburgers.
    </P>
    <P>I never claimed it was.</P>
    <P><BR>
    Richard Nixon:
    <BR>By your "logic", there's no reason to ever fill up the gas tank in your car. Just put enough in it to get to where you're going right now. You're invalid, moron.</P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P>Er, not exactly. By my logic, if you decide to go from New York to Buenos Aires by car, you don't only judge the feasibility of your trip by whether you can afford the amount of fuel necessary to do that. You judge the feasibility of your trip by taking into account the risks you might face and that prevent you from getting there: possibility of accident, of theft, of borders closed because of political tensions,of disease,&nbsp;of lack of ability to cope with tropical weather. Your reply shows that you consider the probability that one's health will limit one's ability to travel at retirement age&nbsp;as negligible, and the fact is that statistics do not seem to support your opinion&nbsp;: True, the average life expectancy&nbsp;in the US is&nbsp;77.2 years, and retirement age is 65, but the most frequent causes of death are heart disease and cancer, and the average age at onset&nbsp;for heart disease in the US is&nbsp;65 (60 for men, 70 for women), and average age at &nbsp;onset&nbsp;for &nbsp;cancer is less than 65 for most cancers.&nbsp;Statistics clearly seem to indicate that your confidence of being in top shape at age 65&nbsp;might be&nbsp;enviable but not necessarily justified.</P>
  • Thomas 2005-09-24 07:50
    <P>
    Anonymous:
    You are all communists! Every one!<BR>
    </P>
    <P>Is that a criticism or a compliment ? [;)]</P>
    <P>&nbsp;</P>
  • Anon 2005-09-25 03:47
    I need some advice.<br>
    <br>
    I work with this guy and his title is "HTML author". He's been with the company for many <span style="font-style: italic;">many </span>years
    and has authority simply because of his seniority. He has no
    programming skills to speak of, unless you count copy-and-paste
    Javascript from the internet. The problem is, he dominates all of our
    meetings. We have a team of hardcore VB.NET developers and this HTML
    guy is the odd-guy in the bunch. He will stop programming discussions
    with irrelevant comments like "That won't affect my blink tag will it?"
    And we have to address his concerns because of the seniority issue. He
    has been known to have a lot of clout with upper management and we
    suspect that he's even been the cause of some of our best developers
    getting canned. (2 top-notch developers were fired last year and the
    firings happened right after a major argument between said HTML author
    and developers. Coincidence? I think not.) Anyways, let me stress the
    fact that this guy has no actual programming skills. In a subtle way we
    quizzed him about his programming knowledge and it basically amounts to
    the creation and maintenance of HTML tags. And we even believe he is
    not familiar with the more advanced elements of HTML...such as image
    maps.<br>
    <br>
    That was the background. On Friday, I got into an argument with HTML
    author. He wanted to "check my code" so it wouldn't cause conflicts
    with his deployment of a new hyperlink. I asked him if he knew enough
    about VB.NET to be able to "check my code". This really upset him and
    he basically starts yelling at me about the fact that he's been with
    the company for so many years and that it only takes a word from him
    and I'm history. Naturally I responded in anger and I accidentally said
    too much. I asked him to consider if he didn't have his present
    position who would hire him? Apparently this was the last straw. He
    stormed off and yelled back with "Recruiters have my phone ringing off
    the hook!"<br>
    <br>
    I wasn't sure if I should have laughed or what. It should be interesting to see the fallout on Monday.<br>
  • Dan 2005-09-25 04:04
    This kind of relates to the "Whassup Dawg" handshake thing.<br>
    <br>
    I came in one day and said "Sup Baby!" and my boss got mad. He said it
    was okay to say "Sup" but not "baby" because "baby" is sexist and we
    could get sued for sexual harrassment.<br>
    <br>
    Just thought I'd share.<br>
  • bp 2005-09-25 14:03
    Mike R:
    Anonymous:
    I get the impression that the WTF is supposed
    to be directed at the candidates, but the only people I'm saying WTF??
    to when I read them is the interviewers and other staff at the
    companies. All I can say is that these stories make me incredibly
    grateful to be working for an incredibly company that values substance
    over appearance and doesn't think you're an idiot just because you
    don't precisely follow the unwritten protocols of the suit-and-tie
    world.
    <br>
    <br>
    The whiteboard guy, maybe. But the other two were clearly out of line.
    Wearing a suit to an interview is a sign of respect to the people who
    are going to employ you. You're supposed to look and behave
    professionally when you attend an interview as a professional. Would
    you really want Leisure Suit Larry to come code for you?<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    No way... a suit on someone who dosn't normally wear one is obvious
    (they *look* uncomfortable) and it gets me thinking that maybe there is
    some misrepresentation going on.<br>
    Personally, I dress up only as far as I ever would actually going into
    work, which for me means docker type pants and a button up shirt... <br>
    I've foun that if I get disqualified because I havn't dressed up further, I likley don't want to be there anyway.<br>
    <br>
    Don't forget, as an interviewee you are evaluating the company as much as they are evaluating you.<br>
  • Ralph 2005-09-25 18:23
    Anonymous:
    Don't forget, as an interviewee you are
    evaluating the company as much as they are evaluating you.
    <br>
    <br>
    You can believe that if you want to. But the reality of it is that you
    are there to massage the employer's ego and grovel for the position.<br>
  • Richard Nixon 2005-09-26 08:13
    Anonymous:
    <p>
    Richard Nixon:
    <br>It's not my fault your father has genetic defects and a penchant for cheeseburgers.
    </p>
    <p>I never claimed it was.</p>
    <p><br>
    Richard Nixon:
    <br>By your "logic", there's no
    reason to ever fill up the gas tank in your car. Just put enough in it
    to get to where you're going right now. You're invalid, moron.</p>
    <p>
    </p>
    <p>Er, not exactly. By my logic, if you decide to go from New York to
    Buenos Aires by car, you don't only judge the feasibility of your trip
    by whether you can afford the amount of fuel necessary to do that. You
    judge the feasibility of your trip by taking into account the risks you
    might face and that prevent you from getting there: possibility of
    accident, of theft, of borders closed because of political tensions,of
    disease,&nbsp;of lack of ability to cope with tropical weather. Your
    reply shows that you consider the probability that one's health will
    limit one's ability to travel at retirement age&nbsp;as negligible, and
    the fact is that statistics do not seem to support your opinion&nbsp;:
    True, the average life expectancy&nbsp;in the US is&nbsp;77.2 years,
    and retirement age is 65, but the most frequent causes of death are
    heart disease and cancer, and the average age at onset&nbsp;for heart
    disease in the US is&nbsp;65 (60 for men, 70 for women), and average
    age at &nbsp;onset&nbsp;for &nbsp;cancer is less than 65 for most
    cancers.&nbsp;Statistics clearly seem to indicate that your confidence
    of being in top shape at age 65&nbsp;might be&nbsp;enviable but not
    necessarily justified.</p>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Why would I have to retire at 65? The statement I made was that by
    sacrificing little things now [oh my god - wearing a suit! I can't wear
    a t-shirt? Oh no!] I would make more money. Even someone such as
    yourself can see that this would lead to an earlier retirement age.
    Surprisingly, you didn't make that connection on your own.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
  • Mike R 2005-09-26 08:51
    Anonymous:
    It would be cool to refer to yourself in the third person in an interview.
    <br>
    <br>
    I couldn't resist:<br>
    <br>
    "Disco Stu Doesn't wear suits, Nah'mean?"<br>
    <br>
  • emptyset 2005-09-26 10:30
    <P>
    Anonymous:
    I have complete sympathy for the downtrodden. But I wouldn't elevate the "wino" to the wise-and-honored status of intellectual guru. If he was so wise, why is he a drunkard in the park? You are using drunks and crackheads as your rolemodels. Do I even have to comment on this?
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>when did i call them my role-models?&nbsp; my only role-models are the big flying space hexagon and the minature schnauzer.</FONT></P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>also,&nbsp;when you&nbsp;ask why the guy is in the park drunk, you underscore my point.</FONT></P>
  • Henry Troup 2005-09-26 13:53
    When Nortel laid me off, I decided I would not work anywhere that
    required a suit for the interview. Took me 30 days to find a new gig,
    and I'm still there four years later.<br>
  • jk 2005-09-26 13:56
    that's freaking hilarious.....something i would say....
  • Thomas 2005-09-26 14:21
    <P>
    Richard Nixon:
    <BR><BR>Why would I have to retire at 65? The statement I made was that by sacrificing little things now [oh my god - wearing a suit! I can't wear a t-shirt? Oh no!] I would make more money. Even someone such as yourself can see that this would lead to an earlier retirement age. Surprisingly, you didn't make that connection on your own.<BR>
    </P>
    <P>Even someone such as myself can see that you are not considering the risks. Just as you can't guarantee the state of your health 35 years from now, you can't guarantee the state of your finances 35 years from now, especially if all what you have is your salary.&nbsp;Inflation, bad&nbsp;stockmarket (if you own stocks),&nbsp;can all negatively affect your savings.&nbsp;So, your sacrifices *might* lead you to an early retirement , but nothing is guaranteed (Just compare the purchasing power of&nbsp;one dollar in 1970 to&nbsp;the one of today)&nbsp;. Closer to us, I know plenty of programmers in the 90's who thought they could retire in a few years. Alas... About the sacrifices, you know very well that the suit and the T-Shirt are the tip of the iceberg.&nbsp;It is pretty significant if someone will not hire you as a programmer because you wear a&nbsp;T-Shirt at work. It means that conformity to a certain corporate culture is more important than hiring the programmer of highest ability. Don't get me wrong, this could be a very rational behavior on the part of the management, if IT is not their bottom line, and for some reason they must maintain a strict discipline in the company. But it also means that the programmers life won't be very nice there, and if your programming work isn't important enough that they consider letting you work in tShirt, it is unlikely that it will be important enough to give you a stellar salary. On the other hand, if your work is not only programming, then it's a different story...</P>
  • Dan 2005-09-26 14:24
    <P>So I was just getting out of the USAF and the transition assistance office had set me up with some interviews.</P>
    <P>The first one was at the headquarters for a regional bank.&nbsp; I go in and they have me take this "test" which had like 300 words and I was supposed to indicate how angry or sad each word made me feel.&nbsp; </P>
    <P>Pornography</P>
    <P>Guns</P>
    <P>War</P>
    <P>Sodomy</P>
    <P>Etc.</P>
    <P>So after going through this I thought they were a little suspect.&nbsp; Then the interview starts.&nbsp; Now I have been doing UNIX communications programming (sockets, doors, streams, etc) for like 10 years before this.&nbsp; It turns out that the position was for Win32 crap for some app that scanned canceled checks into a database.&nbsp; So I try to escape:</P>
    <P>Me:&nbsp; Well, I was really looking for something on UNIX</P>
    <P>Guy 1: And then we take this image and load it into a SQL server</P>
    <P>Guy 2: This is a great place to work, we have a new building</P>
    <P>Me:&nbsp; So, listen guys I was really looking on UNIX, I've done some Win32 stuff before and really didn't like it.</P>
    <P>Guy 2: And you get your own parking slot</P>
    <P>Guy 1: And from the SQL server it is read by....And then...</P>
    <P>Me:&nbsp; This really doesn't sound like something I'd like, I appreciate the opportunity...</P>
    <P>Guy 1:&nbsp; Then the customer can access it remotely...</P>
    <P>Guy 2:&nbsp; We're planning on splitting off from the bank, then Fridays will be casual days...</P>
    <P>Me:&nbsp; Hey, listen it's getting late...I should be going...</P>
    <P>Guy 1:&nbsp; But the coolest thing is...</P>
    <P>Guy 2:&nbsp; The manager over all of us is a real nice guy...</P>
    <P><STRONG>Me:&nbsp; You know the whole y2k thing?&nbsp; It's my fault!&nbsp; I didn't have room to store the other 2 digits!&nbsp; And I refuse to fix it!!!&nbsp; I am the anti-coder!!! (Ok, I didn't say the&nbsp;anti-coder bit.)</STRONG></P>
    <P>Guy 1:&nbsp; Um...</P>
    <P>Guy 2:&nbsp; So, do you want a tour?</P>
    <P>Me: No, I want to leave.</P>
    <P>Dan</P>
  • emptyset 2005-09-26 14:47
    Anonymous:
    The first one was at the headquarters for a regional bank.&nbsp; I go in and they have me take this "test" which had like 300 words and I was supposed to indicate how angry or sad each word made me feel.&nbsp;
    <P>Pornography</P>
    <P>Guns</P>
    <P>War</P>
    <P>Sodomy</P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>on the scale of angry to sad?&nbsp; for a bank?&nbsp; that's bizarre.</FONT></P>
  • Henry Troup 2005-09-26 14:58
    Must be a troll&nbsp; - the first is clearly illegal.<br>
  • asmodai 2005-09-26 14:59
    Anonymous:
    I came in one day and said "Sup Baby!" and my boss got mad. He said it
    was okay to say "Sup" but not "baby" because "baby" is sexist and we
    could get sued for sexual harrassment.
    <br>
    <br>
    The entire "lets be as politically correct as we can" thing these last few years is really getting tiring.<br>
    <br>
    Sexual harassment is when you verbally or physically intimidate a person to the point of a pr0n flick.<br>
    <br>
    Have people's hides thinned so considerably or is it the lawyer-effect coming in hard nowadays?<br>
  • asmodai 2005-09-26 15:02
    Anonymous:
    The first one was at the headquarters for a regional bank.&nbsp; I
    go in and they have me take this "test" which had like 300 words and I
    was supposed to indicate how angry or sad each word made me feel.&nbsp;

    <p>Pornography</p>
    <p>Guns</p>
    <p>War</p>
    <p>Sodomy</p>
    <p>Etc.
    <br>
    </p>
    <p>Can they actually ask you to do such a test?&nbsp; I think here in
    the Netherlands this falls under psychology and all the attached rules
    and codes of honour associated with said profession.<br>
    </p>
  • UncleMidriff 2005-09-26 15:03
    emptyset:
    <br>
    <br>
    <span id="_ctl0_PostForm_Reply"><font face="Courier New">the chain of
    command&nbsp;will soon be an&nbsp;obsolete business concept, anyway.&nbsp; the only
    reason it's still around is because for whatever reason, intelligent
    monkeys have an affinity for taxonomy.&nbsp; while that was pretty useful to
    get us all out of the trees and into cities, this era must come to an
    end if we're to advance as a species.&nbsp; it could start by dropping
    useless conventions that no longer apply in the modern world.</font></span><br>
    <p><font face="Courier New" size="2">a convention like "i do what the
    boss tells me to do, no matter what" should be replaced with "i'm
    cooperating with this group of people to make us all succeed - how do i
    best contribute myself to make this happen?"&nbsp; the&nbsp;burden of
    wearing a tie to impress someone rests entirely with the observer "i am
    going to let my opinion of this man be governed by the noose around his
    neck or the quality of his cufflinks, or i am going to make the best
    decision?"</font></p>
    <br>
    <br>
    Without a chain of command, who makes the decisions?&nbsp; Do you
    really want to call a big meeting and get the opinion of every person
    in the group before making any decision?&nbsp; For smaller groups that
    might work just fine, and at really small development shops, that is
    probably close to how they do things.&nbsp; But as soon as the group
    gets to be larger in size, it seems to me that having no chain of
    command would lead to a big ugly mess.<br>
    <br>
    In the perfect world it would be as you say; everyone would have the
    desire to work their hardest individually so that the entire group
    might prosper.&nbsp; In the real world people are much more selfish and
    there are going to be conflicts.&nbsp; Without someone with the
    authority to stand up and say, "Listen!&nbsp; All y'all shut up!&nbsp;
    Were going to do X in Y manner, and that's that.&nbsp; If you do not
    like it, I'm sorry.&nbsp; Perhaps you should leave to find another
    group with which you're compatible," I wouldn't think much would get
    done in the face of such conflicts.&nbsp; Heck, even if we're back in
    the perfect world, saintly and unselfish people are still likely to
    disagree at some point about what's best for the group.&nbsp; How does
    one resolve the conflict without some sort of chain of command?&nbsp; A
    game of paper-rock-scissors?&nbsp; A fight to the death?<br>
    <br>
    For me at least, the convention isn't "<font face="Courier New" size="2">i do what the
    boss tells me to do, no matter what</font>,"
    but rather, "The boss is paying me well to sit in his building to use
    his equipment in an effort to make his company some money.&nbsp; If the
    boss tells me to do something, I will do it so long as doing so is
    ethical.&nbsp; Otherwise, I cannot do for the boss what he wants me to
    do, in the way he wants me to do it, and thus he has little reason to
    keep giving me money."<br>
    <br>
    Please know that I'm being sincere with this post...I'm not trying to be sarcastic or contentious.<br>
  • Henry Troup 2005-09-26 15:07
    Anonymous:
    Must be a troll&nbsp; - the first is clearly illegal.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Sorry - in reference to the poster who claimed he'd ask "are you a communist?"<br>
  • emptyset 2005-09-26 16:10
    <P>
    UncleMidriff:
    Without a chain of command, who makes the decisions?
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>he or she who is designated the oracle.&nbsp; this person wears a big purple snood and saunters around the building doing whatever they want for a week.&nbsp; if&nbsp;the group determines it was a&nbsp;successful oracle, the snood is passed along without incident, always to the left.&nbsp; in the event of a failed oracle, the person's&nbsp;jugular is&nbsp;sliced&nbsp;in a&nbsp;beet field.</FONT></P>
    <P>
    UncleMidriff:
    Do you really want to call a big meeting and get the opinion of every person in the group before making any decision?&nbsp; For smaller groups that might work just fine, and at really small development shops, that is probably close to how they do things.&nbsp; But as soon as the group gets to be larger in size, it seems to me that having no chain of command would lead to a big ugly mess.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>no cohesive software&nbsp;team should be larger than five people.&nbsp; if it is, then the setup falls in the category of "business that produce nothing but keep paying their workers&nbsp;to be&nbsp;consumers" - look at what happened at delta.&nbsp; not only does the law of diminishing returns applies here, but also the snood passing cycle is more or less aligned with the changing phases of the moon, and this pleases tyr.</FONT><BR><BR>
    UncleMidriff:
    Heck, even if we're back in the perfect world, saintly and unselfish people are still likely to disagree at some point about what's best for the group.&nbsp; How does one resolve the conflict without some sort of chain of command?&nbsp; A game of paper-rock-scissors?&nbsp; A fight to the death?
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>i do not see anything wrong with the&nbsp;weekly oracle&nbsp;method.</FONT><BR><BR>
    UncleMidriff:
    For me at least, the convention isn't "<FONT face="Courier New" size=2>i do what the boss tells me to do, no matter what</FONT>," but rather, "The boss is paying me well to sit in his building to use his equipment in an effort to make his company some money.&nbsp; If the boss tells me to do something, I will do it so long as doing so is ethical.&nbsp; Otherwise, I cannot do for the boss what he wants me to do, in the way he wants me to do it, and thus he has little reason to keep giving me money."
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>you essentially re-worded, but said exactly what i said.&nbsp; ethics.&nbsp; pshaw.&nbsp; what a spectre of the mind.&nbsp; you born on a farm, boy?&nbsp; there are no ethics in the house of disco, all the people flaunting their zoot suits and cocaine.&nbsp; there is every reason to continue to pay you money, even if you refuse to launder cash.&nbsp; they won't wait on you.&nbsp; the party keeps moving if you're going to work the weekend.&nbsp; i'm not jesus so i can't make the blind see, but it's pretty obvious that we're all living in a giant ponzi scheme, but in reverse.</FONT></P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>ok, look here.&nbsp; there's substantial evidence out here that indicates time is malleable.&nbsp; otherwise, they wouldn't have put walt disney's head on ice.&nbsp; in the future, rich people exhaust the possibilities of their endless wealth and do nothing more than live in endless mardi gras.&nbsp; but the system is not sustainable.&nbsp; eventually, they discovered that enough debauchery could send people back in time.&nbsp; karl marx spoke of 'the primitive accumulation of capital' but cleverly side-stepped the issue, perhaps because he wouldn't have known anything about peyote.&nbsp; how did the rich get there in the first place?&nbsp; do you think all the bullion and colonial riches created wealth?&nbsp; nein.&nbsp; they came from the future.&nbsp; they realized that if you keep the wealth out of the hands of the people by getting them to buy stuff, then they wouldn't be in the future mardi gras and get sent back in time.&nbsp; it's quite accidental, really.&nbsp; but the reverse ponzi scheme must continue because the fewer people who realize wealth is a state of mind and not being surround by ipods, the fewer people who get to back in time.&nbsp; walt disney's head on ice is excellent proof of this.&nbsp; he was a very disturbed and troubled man - on the one hand, deeply religious, and on the other, wealthy.&nbsp; he knew about the cycle, so he had his head put on ice to witness the end of days - or when the cycle collapses on itself and time loses meaning.</FONT></P>
  • asmodai 2005-09-26 16:17
    emptyset:
    <font face="Courier New" size="2">and this pleases tyr.</font>
    <br>
    So, on which side of Ragnarok are the WTF coders?<br>
  • emptyset 2005-09-26 16:23
    <P>
    asmodai:
    emptyset:
    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>and this pleases tyr.</FONT>
    <BR>So, on which side of Ragnarok are the WTF coders?<BR>
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>this is an idle question.</FONT></P>
  • UncleMidriff 2005-09-26 16:56
    emptyset:
    <span style="font-family: courier new;"></span><p><font face="Courier New" size="2">you
    essentially re-worded, but said exactly what i said.&nbsp;
    ethics.&nbsp; pshaw.&nbsp; what a spectre of the mind.&nbsp; you born
    on a farm, boy?</font>
    <br>
    </p>
    <p>I live in Oklahoma, so of course.&nbsp; I mean, hell, we just computers a year or so ago.<br>
    </p>
  • George 2005-09-26 17:26
    Sorry. Been there done that. Putting in some extra effort for a "finishing sprint" for a trade show or a release is one thing, but anyone who sets up an engineering organization on the basis of a zillion extra hours is a jackass. Good engineering managers are adept at measuring the output of their process. Poor ones measure how many cars are in the parking lot over the weekend. Hours-driven managers are the bane of software engineering for one simple reason. Someone who is focused on hours is not focused on true costs of mistakes and does not understand the fact, backed up by copious research in the field, that the relation between cost and time-to-discovery in correcting a software bug is exponential. So much better to not introduce bugs in the first place. Hours-mongers only know how to show beta versions, not how to ship in the long term.
  • Stan Rogers 2005-09-26 18:08
    Anonymous:
    Sorry. Been there done that. Putting in some
    extra effort for a "finishing sprint" for a trade show or a release is
    one thing, but anyone who sets up an engineering organization on the
    basis of a zillion extra hours is a jackass. Good engineering managers
    are adept at measuring the output of their process. Poor ones measure
    how many cars are in the parking lot over the weekend. Hours-driven
    managers are the bane of software engineering for one simple reason.
    Someone who is focused on hours is not focused on true costs of
    mistakes and does not understand the fact, backed up by copious
    research in the field, that the relation between cost and
    time-to-discovery in correcting a software bug is exponential. So much
    better to not introduce bugs in the first place. Hours-mongers only
    know how to show beta versions, not how to ship in the long
    term.
    <br>
    <br>
    <i>The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering</i> is thirty years old now, and it seems that some people <span style="font-style: italic;">still</span> don't get it.<br>
  • Mike R 2005-09-27 07:40
    emptyset:
    <br>
    (Chemically Induced Rambling)<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Whatever you're smoking, snorting, drinking, hitting or injecting, please stop!<br>
  • emptyset 2005-09-27 08:38
    <P>
    Mike R:
    Whatever you're smoking, snorting, drinking, hitting or injecting, please stop!<BR>
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>i don't understand why people make this assumption.&nbsp; i'm sober at work.</FONT></P>
  • PSA 2005-09-27 09:26
    Don't do drugs.
  • silent speaker 2005-09-27 10:40
    <P>this Dilbert seemed to fit...</P>
    <P>&nbsp;</P>
    <P>[img]<A href="http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2040699050927.gif[/img">http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2040699050927.gif[/img</A>]</P>
  • emurphy 2005-09-28 18:25
    emptyset:
    <p>
    Mike R:
    Whatever you're smoking, snorting, drinking, hitting or injecting, please stop!<br>
    </p>
    <p><font face="Courier New" size="2">i don't understand why people make this assumption.&nbsp; i'm sober at work.</font></p>
    <br>
    <br>
    Because you come off like a dumb stoned prick, that's why.<br>
    <br>
  • emurphy 2005-09-28 18:27
    Anonymous:
    <p>this Dilbert seemed to fit...</p>
    <p>&nbsp;</p>
    <p>[img]<a href="http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2040699050927.gif%5B/img">http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2040699050927.gif[/img</a>]</p>
    <br>
    <br>
    The link will work if you strip off the [/img at the end.<br>
    <br>
  • James 2005-09-29 11:35
    emptyset:
    <p>
    Mike R:
    Whatever you're smoking, snorting, drinking, hitting or injecting, please stop!<br>
    </p>
    <p><font face="Courier New" size="2">i don't understand why people make this assumption.  i'm sober at work.</font></p>
    You actually work? That's surprises me.<br>
  • Randy 2005-09-29 13:13
    These stories seem to say more about the poor interviewing practices of
    the interviewers. In the first story - I find it hard to believe that
    someone so unqualified made it past the screening interview - or why
    for that matter - a panel would be used for a first round. The third
    second ("sit down") story is even more bizarre. The candidate described
    sounds very interested and prepared but what's wrong with this
    picture?. Any interview serious enough to have top people (as
    described) present - you'd think they would take into consideration
    that a white board might be used - that's a standard practice in many
    such interviews. This mistake goes to the panel. <br>
    I<br>
  • emptyset 2005-09-29 15:44
    emurphy:
    emptyset:

    <P>
    Mike R:
    Whatever you're smoking, snorting, drinking, hitting or injecting, please stop!<BR>
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>i don't understand why people make this assumption.&nbsp; i'm sober at work.</FONT></P>
    <P>
    <BR><BR>Because you come off like a dumb stoned prick, that's why.<BR><BR>
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>you undervalue my style.&nbsp; please don't break my achey-breaky heart.</FONT></P>
  • emptyset 2005-09-29 15:46
    Anonymous:
    You actually work? That's surprises me.<BR>

    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>my work is on secret government projects.&nbsp; </FONT></P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>"leading hitherto unknown advances in the field of electronics" - cal</FONT></P>
  • Bizzie 2005-10-02 00:18
    Did anybody hear the end of the HTML Author story?<br>
  • Ralph 2005-10-04 23:46
    What HTML Author story?<br>
  • Weezel 2005-10-07 02:24
    I tried using the expression "Nah'mean" at work yesterday. People were looking at me as if I had lost my mind.<br>
  • Treadwell 2005-10-08 19:35
    Anonymous:
    I tried using the expression "Nah'mean" at work
    yesterday. People were looking at me as if I had lost my mind.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Maybe it's how you're saying it. Try emphasizing different parts of the
    expression. Like "NAH-mean!" Emphasize the "NAH" part more than the
    "mean". I think that will get you the reaction you're after.<br>
  • Savior 2005-10-08 21:11
    <P>Let me tell you my interview story... it was two weeks ago.<BR>The first stage was a test (ERP/SQL stuff - a technical test) and me and another guy passed this one(there were half a dozen people doing it). One week later, we go on&nbsp;the psychology test.<BR>Then the psychologist give me a stupid test, where I'm supposed to draw a house, then a tree, and then a person. After the drawing is done, she starts asking stupid questions like:<BR>How's the house inside?<BR>Is it build from wood or bricks?<BR>What kind of tree is this?<BR>Is it healty?<BR>Is this person alone or with others?<BR>How do this person feels?<BR>What this person is doing?</P>
    <P>After answering these questions, I leave, and the other guy comes in to do it.<BR>After all is done, two other people join the interview (One is from the HR, and the other is from the IT department - I'm running for the system analyst job).<BR>My interview starts. And it was awful...<BR>The psychologist is the main interviewer, yes, she asked most of the questions.<BR>The HR woman asked only, and only one question: How did I worked in a team. At first I wanted to reply with: "I work well, as long as people leave me alone", but I didn't. I have to say that I gave the answer she was expecting: I worked well in a team.<BR>The guy from the IT department asked few questions, I think because I knew me, and this part wasn't bad. <BR>The really god awful part were the questions asked by the psychologist. And she asked almost all the questions. The first question she asked me:<BR>"What are the qualities I appreciate in a friend?"<BR>WTF?! And next, she asks:<BR>"What wouldn't you do for a friend?"<BR>What?? But it didn't stopped there. She also asked if I was a good student. She asked me to pretend my father as a politician and convice them to vote for him.<BR>Can you&nbsp;imagine that? The interview went downhill since she asked about the qualities I appreciated in a friend, and that was the very first question, followed by what wouldn't I do for a friend. <BR>Am I trying to join the Justice League or trying a job as system analyst?<BR>Well, I think I don't need to say that I didn't got the job.</P>
    <P>Oh, yes. Wanna know what kind of company have this type of interview?<BR>A University.<BR><BR>Well, they didn't asked in what kind of technologies I'm skilled, or what programming language I know, but hey! They know what I most appreciate in a friend!<BR>Isn't it great?</P>
  • Mike 2005-10-08 21:34
    Savior:
    Am I trying to join the Justice League or trying a job as system analyst?
    <br>
    <br>
    That story was <span style="font-style: italic;">too </span>funny. I'm still laughing about it.<br>
    <br>
    What kind of answers do they really expect? Most people are going to
    say exactly what they want to hear. Of course you're going to answer
    with fluffy, happy, positive responses.<br>
    <br>
    No one is going to respond with a "Sieg Heil!" and start goosestepping
    around the room. Although it would be funny if someone did.<br>
  • emptyset 2005-10-10 10:10
    Savior:
    <BR>Am I trying to join the Justice League or trying a job as system analyst?<BR>Well, I think I don't need to say that I didn't got the job.
    <P>Oh, yes. Wanna know what kind of company have this type of interview?<BR>A University.<BR><BR>Well, they didn't asked in what kind of technologies I'm skilled, or what programming language I know, but hey! They know what I most appreciate in a friend!<BR>Isn't it great?</P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>dude, you probably didn't get hired based on your engrish skills.</FONT></P>
  • Savior 2005-10-10 11:15
    emptyset:
    Savior:
    <BR>Am I trying to join the Justice League or trying a job as system analyst?<BR>Well, I think I don't need to say that I didn't got the job.
    <P>Oh, yes. Wanna know what kind of company have this type of interview?<BR>A University.<BR><BR>Well, they didn't asked in what kind of technologies I'm skilled, or what programming language I know, but hey! They know what I most appreciate in a friend!<BR>Isn't it great?</P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>dude, you probably didn't get hired based on your engrish skills.</FONT></P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P>&nbsp;</P>
    <P>Yes, and probably because I live in a country that doesn't speak english! [:D]</P>
  • emptyset 2005-10-10 11:27
    <P>
    Savior:
    Yes, and probably because I live in a country that doesn't speak english! [:D]
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>are you from albania?</FONT></P>
  • Savior 2005-10-10 11:39
    Could you re-write my post with the grammar corrections?
  • emptyset 2005-10-10 11:50
    <P>
    Savior:
    Could you re-write my post with the grammar corrections?
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>i am busy right now.&nbsp; perhaps later, while drunk.</FONT></P>
  • Salt 2005-10-10 13:29
    @EmptySet: Da drugs man! Da drugs!<br>
  • emptyset 2005-10-10 15:11
    <P>
    Anonymous:
    @EmptySet: Da drugs man! Da drugs!<BR>
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>no, i'm at work now, asshat.</FONT></P>
  • Salt 2005-10-10 15:45
    emptyset:
    <font face="Courier New" size="2">no, i'm at work now, asshat.</font>
    <br>
    <br>
    That never stopped you before, assclown.<br>
  • emptyset 2005-10-10 16:26
    <P>
    Anonymous:
    emptyset:
    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>no, i'm at work now, asshat.</FONT>
    <BR><BR>That never stopped you before, assclown.<BR>
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>oh, really?&nbsp; since you pretend to know me so well, why don't you just tell everyone on this forum which project i was working on where i allegedly used drugs at work?</FONT></P>
  • Salt 2005-10-10 16:42
    emptyset:
    <p><font face="Courier New" size="2">oh,
    really?&nbsp; since you pretend to know me so well, why don't you just
    tell everyone on this forum which project i was working on where i
    allegedly used drugs at work?</font></p>
    <br>
    <br>
    You are such a serious person EmptySet.<br>
    <br>
    I just wanted to use the term "assclown" and you gave me the perfect opportunity.<br>
  • Savior 2005-10-10 17:28
    <P>Yeah, EmptySet is the kind of guy who acts all bad-ass, but when you say something about it, he'll start to bitch and moan.</P>
    <P>In my opinion, he's just another 13 year old trying to pose as a coder.</P>
  • emptyset 2005-10-10 18:54
    <P>
    Savior:
    Yeah, EmptySet is the kind of guy who acts all bad-ass, but when you say something about it, he'll start to bitch and moan.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>you won't see me posting about mad kung-fu skills like that guy in the other thread.</FONT></P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>and i don't quite see how i'm acting like a badass by posting to&nbsp;this forum.</FONT></P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>i really don't like it when people jump to retarded conclusions about people they've never met in their life except through an online, public forum.</FONT></P>
    <P>
    Savior:
    In my opinion, he's just another 13 year old trying to pose as a coder.
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>you must be from albania, because you sound like the kind of person who is bitter about losing all their money in a pyramid scheme.</FONT></P>
  • Savior 2005-10-10 19:39
    emptyset:

    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>you must be from albania, because you sound like the kind of person who is bitter about losing all their money in a pyramid scheme.</FONT></P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P>Here in Albania, we don't have these "pyramid scheme" you talk about.<BR>We live our lives in praise to Allah, the only and true God.<BR>Games like this "pyramid scheme" are forbidden.</P>
  • Ralphie Boy 2005-10-10 20:03
    emptyset:
    <font face="Courier New" size="2">you won't see me posting about mad kung-fu skills like that guy in the other thread.</font>
    <br>
    <br>
    I know a really tame form of tai-kwando but I'm pretty sure I could karate chop you into unconsciousness if I tried hard enough.<br>
    <br>
    <span style="font-style: italic;">Waa!</span><br>
    <br>
    Now who's a badass?<br>
  • Savior 2005-10-10 21:02
    <P>@emptyset:</P>
    <P><A href="http://www.wendi.com/procrastination/?1255">http://www.wendi.com/procrastination/?1255</A></P>
    <P>Have fun. </P>
  • Mikey B. 2005-10-10 22:33
    @Savior: I want to be a badass like EmptySet. What do I need to do?<br>
  • Tom 2005-10-10 22:47
    Anonymous:
    @Savior: I want to be a badass like EmptySet. What do I need to do?<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    Oooh! Oooh! I wanna be a badass too! Hook me up! HOOK ME UP!!!<br>
  • Richard Nixon 2005-10-11 08:21
    emptyset:
    <p><font face="Courier New" size="2">i really
    don't like it when people jump to retarded conclusions about people
    they've never met in their life except through an online, public forum.</font></p>
    <br>
    <br>
    So you're a self-loather?<br>
  • emptyset 2005-10-11 11:18
    Richard Nixon:
    emptyset:

    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>i really don't like it when people jump to retarded conclusions about people they've never met in their life except through an online, public forum.</FONT></P>
    <P>
    <BR><BR>So you're a self-loather?<BR>
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>no, of course not.&nbsp; i'm awesome.</FONT></P>
  • emptyset 2005-10-11 11:31
    Savior:

    <P>@emptyset:</P>
    <P><A href="http://www.wendi.com/procrastination/?1255">http://www.wendi.com/procrastination/?1255</A></P>
    <P>Have fun. </P>
    <P>
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>oh definitely!&nbsp; i'm gonna click on that!&nbsp; here i go!</FONT></P>
  • Roger 2005-10-11 13:48
    For some reason EmptySet reminds me of this little old lady I work
    with. She's about 84 years old and tries her best to "fit in". One day
    we were all crowded around a computer watching this streaming video of
    this dancing performer. She exclaimed "Oh my! He is certainly getting <span style="font-weight: bold;">jig </span>with it!"<br>
    <br>
    We tell her repeatedly that it's "jiggy" but she continues using the
    term "jig". Plus, she obviously has no clue what the phrase really
    means.<br>
    <br>
    Thought I'd share.<br>
  • emptyset 2005-10-11 14:35
    <P>
    Anonymous:
    For some reason EmptySet reminds me of this little old lady I work with. She's about 84 years old and tries her best to "fit in". One day we were all crowded around a computer watching this streaming video of this dancing performer. She exclaimed "Oh my! He is certainly getting <SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">jig </SPAN>with it!"<BR><BR>We tell her repeatedly that it's "jiggy" but she continues using the term "jig". Plus, she obviously has no clue what the phrase really means.<BR><BR>Thought I'd share.<BR>
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>yes!&nbsp; exactly!&nbsp; i need to fit in on thedailywtf.com forums!&nbsp; my life is so lacking without this.&nbsp; i need you people to accept me.</FONT></P>
  • Mike R 2005-10-11 14:39
    emptyset:
    <p><font face="Courier New" size="2">tly!&nbsp;
    i need to fit in on thedailywtf.com forums!&nbsp; my life is so lacking
    without this.&nbsp; i need you people to accept me.</font></p>
    <br>
    <br>
    Isn't it obvious that we all have that same <span style="font-family: courier new;">void</span> to fill?<br>
  • Richard Nixon 2005-10-11 14:45
    emptyset:
    <p>
    Anonymous:
    For some reason
    EmptySet reminds me of this little old lady I work with. She's about 84
    years old and tries her best to "fit in". One day we were all crowded
    around a computer watching this streaming video of this dancing
    performer. She exclaimed "Oh my! He is certainly getting <span style="font-weight: bold;">jig </span>with it!"<br><br>We
    tell her repeatedly that it's "jiggy" but she continues using the term
    "jig". Plus, she obviously has no clue what the phrase really means.<br><br>Thought I'd share.<br>
    </p>
    <p><font face="Courier New" size="2">yes!&nbsp; exactly!&nbsp; i need
    to fit in on thedailywtf.com forums!&nbsp; my life is so lacking
    without this.&nbsp; i need you people to accept me.</font></p>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    I accept you! <br>
  • emptyset 2005-10-11 14:46
    Richard Nixon:
    emptyset:

    <P>
    Anonymous:
    For some reason EmptySet reminds me of this little old lady I work with. She's about 84 years old and tries her best to "fit in". One day we were all crowded around a computer watching this streaming video of this dancing performer. She exclaimed "Oh my! He is certainly getting <SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">jig </SPAN>with it!"<BR><BR>We tell her repeatedly that it's "jiggy" but she continues using the term "jig". Plus, she obviously has no clue what the phrase really means.<BR><BR>Thought I'd share.<BR>
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>yes!&nbsp; exactly!&nbsp; i need to fit in on thedailywtf.com forums!&nbsp; my life is so lacking without this.&nbsp; i need you people to accept me.</FONT></P>
    <P>
    <BR><BR><BR>I accept you! <BR>
    </P>
    <P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>yay!</FONT></P>
  • Homeslice 2005-10-13 03:12
    @emptyset: git jig wit it, my brudda!<br>
    <br>
    <span style="font-style: italic;">Chek out my Engrish grammactical skillz, yo!</span><br>
  • Ed Ski 2005-10-14 16:45
    <DIV>One year we were hiring like a banshee wails, and I did phone interviews three a morning, 6am, 7am and 8am. I was a very serious technical interview, it was not uncommon for me to ask the interviewee questions like, describe for me a TCP/IP packet--that was an easy one.</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>I had this interviewee ace about 65 of my 67 questions--I am in eastern time (6am) , he was in Texas.&nbsp; I was amazed -- then the next day, I call him back saying that I want to fly him up here.&nbsp; He could not remember the interview!&nbsp; Here was not a morning person -- he was pretty much answering in his sleep.</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>We hired him.</DIV>
    <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV>Ed</DIV>
  • Sid 2005-10-15 01:27
    I had to interview this guy for an entry level programming position.
    Per company policy, I gave him the standard programmer's questionaire,
    which consisted of basic programming questions like "Write a for loop".
    Well, the candidate handed me the sheet and as I reviewed it I noticed
    his "for loop" was very HTML-like. It had tags like
    <FOR><EACH></FOR> and was very involved to say the
    least. I laughed out loud and said "That's very funny! But we were
    looking for a serious answer here. I'm sure you understand. It's
    company policy that we have to go through these formalities." At this
    point, I noticed the extremely concerned look on his face. It appeared
    as if his lower lip was <span style="font-style: italic;">quivering</span>. I thought to myself "<span style="font-style: italic;">No way. This can't be happening.</span>" and I asked him "You weren't <span style="font-style: italic;">serious</span>...were you?" The candidate simply nodded.<br>
    <br>
    If it weren't for the fact that he used programmatic HTML, we would have hired him.<br>
  • Sid 2005-10-15 01:33
    Anonymous:
    It had tags like<for>
    <br>
    <br>
    Crappy posting software. Doesn't ignore invalid HTML tags...<br>
    </for>
  • Ranger Rick 2005-10-16 12:48
    This posting software...it's so...limp-wristed!<br>
    <br>
    HAHAHAHA<br>
    <br>
    <span style="font-style: italic;">Hey, I thought it was funny.</span><br>
  • Juhana Siren 2005-10-18 09:23
    Ytram:
    John:
    <span id="PostFlatView">I was doing a telephone interview from my cube
    just last week when a cow-orker came into my cube and started looking
    at some old pictures I have.  I turned briefly and angrily hissed "I'm
    doing a phone interview!" at her.  She happily announced "That's OK, I
    won't talk to you" and continued leaning over me to look at the
    pictures!<br><br>I was majorly pissed.  I snatched the photo she was
    looking at (it was held to the cube bookshelf by a magnet) and flung it
    violently from my cube.  I was so flustered by the rudeness of the
    interruption that even after apologizing to the candidate, I still
    found it hard to concentrate for about the next five minutes.  And
    afterward, she was mad at me!  Now, a 20-something kid, I'd understand
    the total lack of manners and common sense.  But a 50-year-old woman? 
    WTF?
    <br>
    <br>
    I'm with dubwai on this one.  You sound like you went psycho on someone doing something that shouldn't disturb you from a <span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;">phone</span> </span>interview. 
    If they were chatting with you and what not, then I'd understand being
    a little pissed, but still throwing crap is never a professional thing
    to do.<br>
    </span>


    OK, I agree that throwing things is not professional, but I still find it impolite to walk in on a phone interview. It's a private conversation, and uninvited listeners would be distracting at either end. Would it be OK to walk in on an ongoing interview in a conference room to flip through a magazine? Even if you just sat in a corner and didn't make any noise?

    --js--
  • Sid 2005-10-18 09:37
    Anonymous:
    OK, I agree that throwing things is not
    professional, but I still find it impolite to walk in on a phone
    interview. It's a private conversation, and uninvited listeners would
    be distracting at either end. Would it be OK to walk in on an ongoing
    interview in a conference room to flip through a magazine? Even if you
    just sat in a corner and didn't make any noise?
    --js--
    <br>
    <br>
    I find it impolite to use crappy posting software.<br>
  • Stan Rogers 2005-10-18 17:37
    Anonymous:
    It had tags like
    <for><each></each> and was very involved to say the
    least.
    <br>
    <br>
    It could have been, say, Water, SuperX++, or any of a number of
    XML-based (that is, tag-based) languages that actually exist out there.
    Or something like MetaL, which is a programme modelling language, also
    replete with tags and XML-based. Or even something off-the-cuff that
    was intended to describe the structure in a language-neutral manner,
    using a familiar metaphor that any programmer worth half a damn would
    be able to understand. Did you happen to specify a language in which
    the code should have been written? If you didn't, then you probably
    laughed somebody more capable than yourself -- someone who groks
    structure as much as syntax -- out of the office.<br>
    </for>
  • garans 2005-11-27 10:47
    Alex Papadimoulis:

    <P>&nbsp;He was exposing all sorts of grotesque hair on his chest. And he had the pimp swagger down too.
    </P>
    <P>What do you mean by "had the pimp swagger down"? Is it a thing or behaviour?</P>
  • Pain 2005-12-16 19:56
    <span style="font-style: italic;" id="_ctl0_PostForm_Reply">
    It could have been, say, Water, SuperX++, or any of a number of
    XML-based (that is, tag-based) languages that actually exist out there.<br><br><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span><span id="_ctl0_PostForm_Reply">If someone is coding with Water thats a good enough reason in its own right to kick them out the door. ConciseXML is one seriously fucked up bastard child. Any of the others of any practical use?</span><span style="font-style: italic;" id="_ctl0_PostForm_Reply"><br></span>
  • A WARY CO MOOD NUNS 2005-12-17 10:45
    Hare Krishna still exists, you know.
  • Rappa 2005-12-20 16:30
    Nah'mean? Yup-Yup!<br>
  • Beau Wilkinson 2005-12-23 15:43
    Anonymous:
    I am a mid-level manager who is about to screen some potential candidates. I agree with a lot of what CPound has said (although not all) and have come up with a series of questions to ask my future employees. I think this will help weed out the bad ones. Let me know what you think.<BR>
    <OL>
    <LI>Are you a Communist? Do you support the Communist Party? You would be surprised how many bright red CCCP and "Che Lives" shirts I've seen showing through their dress shirts. I think this question would help to eliminate 50% of the baddies.
    <LI>How likely are you to break down the door and spray the office with semi-automatic gunfire? If the candidate hesitates or <SPAN style="FONT-STYLE: italic">considers </SPAN>the question, he will be eliminated. The proper response is an immediate "I would never do such a thing!" This will eliminate another 10%.<BR>
    <LI>What sort of animal/tree would you be? If they answer a type of tree or plant they will be eliminated. If they answer some sort of animal, they will be eliminated. The correct answer is <SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">human</SPAN>. There are no other correct responses. This question eliminates another 10%.
    <LI>Will you agree to cut your weird hairdo (aka "shag rug")? Most candidates typically wear the long hair pony-tail style. If they don't agree to cut it, they will be eliminated. This eliminates yet another 10%. (The same thing goes for body piercings...unless they're female, in which case their super sexy.) </LI></OL>
    <P>This leaves a paltry 20% of candidates who still may or may not make the cut. But at least I've gotten rid of the basic riff-raff. Thoughts?<BR>
    </P>
    <P>That sounds like a worthwhile set of criteria except for #1. </P>
    <P>Maybe you should expand on why you wouldn't hire a communist. Do you think they are lazier than the general population, or perhaps less intelligent? Do you just disagree with them politically, and thus object to aiding their career advancement? </P>
    <P>My political views are fairly close to communism, and I am a successful, productive software developer. I don't begrudge my employers as "capitalist fatcats" or think they are exploiting me. I am just a Communist because I would prefer&nbsp;for a much larger proportion&nbsp;of the current workforce to just draw a welfare check and stay home. Realistically, a very large percentage of people in the workforce are just clogging the highways during their commute and then just wasting bandwidth / electricity / desk space while they are "working." I am not ashamed to say that for many people, welfare is the least destructive option. </P>
    <P>And I get a real kick out of the people who bitch and moan constantly about welfare. Chances are, those people really aren't contributing anything more to society than the people on welfare are (especially if they spend 30-45 minutes of company time bitching about welfare with their cronies). And these "workers" take up more space, more gas, more air, etc. than the welfare recipients do, which doesn't endear them to me.</P>
    <P>Otherwise, I think you're being more than fair. Maybe I am biased but a male candidate with long hair (or even facial hair) at the interview would have to be superbly qualified otherwise for me to even give them the chance to clean up. Excess hair implies poor grooming, and if one cannot even groom one's self for the interview, what can I expect on a day-to-day basis? And what does that say about the candidate's desire to gain employment?</P>
  • Quinnum 2005-12-23 20:27
    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:
    I am a mid-level
    manager who is about to screen some potential candidates. I agree with
    a lot of what CPound has said (although not all) and have come up with
    a series of questions to ask my future employees. I think this will
    help weed out the bad ones. Let me know what you think.<br>
    <ol>
    <li>Are you a Communist? Do you support the Communist Party? You would
    be surprised how many bright red CCCP and "Che Lives" shirts I've seen
    showing through their dress shirts. I think this question would help to
    eliminate 50% of the baddies. </li><li>How likely are you to break down the door and spray the office with semi-automatic gunfire? If the candidate hesitates or <span style="font-style: italic;">considers </span>the
    question, he will be eliminated. The proper response is an immediate "I
    would never do such a thing!" This will eliminate another 10%.<br>
    </li><li>What sort of animal/tree would you be? If they answer a type
    of tree or plant they will be eliminated. If they answer some sort of
    animal, they will be eliminated. The correct answer is <span style="font-weight: bold;">human</span>. There are no other correct responses. This question eliminates another 10%.
    </li><li>Will you agree to cut your weird hairdo (aka "shag rug")? Most
    candidates typically wear the long hair pony-tail style. If they don't
    agree to cut it, they will be eliminated. This eliminates yet another
    10%. (The same thing goes for body piercings...unless they're female,
    in which case their super sexy.) </li></ol>
    <p>This leaves a paltry 20% of candidates who still may or may not make
    the cut. But at least I've gotten rid of the basic riff-raff. Thoughts?<br>
    </p>
    <p>That sounds like a worthwhile set of criteria except for #1. </p>
    <p>Maybe you should expand on why you wouldn't hire a communist. Do you
    think they are lazier than the general population, or perhaps less
    intelligent? Do you just disagree with them politically, and thus
    object to aiding their career advancement? </p>
    <p>My political views are fairly close to communism, and I am a
    successful, productive software developer. I don't begrudge my
    employers as "capitalist fatcats" or think they are exploiting me. I am
    just a Communist because I would prefer&nbsp;for a much larger
    proportion&nbsp;of the current workforce to just draw a welfare check
    and stay home. Realistically, a very large percentage of people in the
    workforce are just clogging the highways during their commute and then
    just wasting bandwidth / electricity / desk space while they are
    "working." I am not ashamed to say that for many people, welfare is the
    least destructive option. </p>
    <p>And I get a real kick out of the people who bitch and moan
    constantly about welfare. Chances are, those people really aren't
    contributing anything more to society than the people on welfare are
    (especially if they spend 30-45 minutes of company time bitching about
    welfare with their cronies). And these "workers" take up more space,
    more gas, more air, etc. than the welfare recipients do, which doesn't
    endear them to me.</p>
    <p>Otherwise, I think you're being more than fair. Maybe I am biased
    but a male candidate with long hair (or even facial hair) at the
    interview would have to be superbly qualified otherwise for me to even
    give them the chance to clean up. Excess hair implies poor grooming,
    and if one cannot even groom one's self for the interview, what can I
    expect on a day-to-day basis? And what does that say about the
    candidate's desire to gain employment?</p>
    <br>
    <br>
    Wow. Interesting, non-relevant response to what appears to me to be 'joke' questions.<br>
    <br>
  • Kuba Ober 2006-03-09 15:05
    > I would have thrown him out the window.
    > The guy is obviously an arrogant ass and
    > I wouldn't want to subject my employees
    > to someone like him regardless of his skill.

    Sure. That's why it's better to have incompetent, overpaid, but politically correct and socially adapted miscreants for your employees. Yay :)

    Cheers, Kuba
  • Jerim 2006-12-31 18:28
    Working long hours is the norm. You should view those hours as &quot;learning&quot; hours. I can handle an hour or two past five. However, I agree that consistently working 10 hours a day, even on Saturdays will quickly burn you out. However, you should have learned enough from all the hours to find a much better job. So look at the hours as an investment in learning, even if the job only lasts 6 months. Of course, I wouldn&#39;t work unless they actually paid me for the extra hours. No salary crap.<br />
  • rekadgrios junebbe 2007-01-08 11:43
    that is the dummest thing tha i have ever read!!!
  • j 2007-02-05 00:09
    the silliest thing ive ever said in an interview was like this

    interviewer : how do you cope with excessive workloads and prioritize and what not

    me : type faster
  • Dugeen 2008-05-14 06:54
    These stories don't really fit on WTF, they're based on joining the powerful in laughing at their victims. I prefer laughing at people who fraudulently pretend to be good programmers.
  • darkmage0707077 2008-07-03 13:26
    [quote user="Mike R
    The whiteboard guy, maybe. But the other two were clearly out of line.
    Wearing a suit to an interview is a sign of respect to the people who
    are going to employ you. You're supposed to look and behave
    professionally when you attend an interview as a professional. Would
    you really want Leisure Suit Larry to come code for you?

    [/quote]

    Well, he apparently WAS a software developer for several years before becoming a swinger in Leisure Suit Larry 1...and in LSL2, he coded up a Word Processor on what looks like a 486 in about 5-10 SECONDS...
    "Yes?"
  • good article 2012-03-19 03:40
    good place to find www.jerseystadium.com
  • good article 2012-03-19 03:41
    cheap jerseys at www.bestjerseysmine.com and www.cheapnfljerseyswholesale.org
  • Paresh 2012-07-09 21:49
    Why would you leave valuable info on such a temporary place? Next time use a perminent marker or write above and around it do not erase. Who's the one to drop the ball on that. Can't tell you how many time we had a room reserved with a board only to find stuff on it without any info of who wrote it or if we can erase it. One time or one party use of whiteboards in a share room should grounds for kick me slapped to your rear.