[Baypiggies] Job Requirements PEP

Charles Merriam charles.merriam at gmail.com
Tue Jun 30 18:56:01 CEST 2009

So, will there be a PEP for how to hire and evaluate Python
programmers?   Python would be the first language to explicitly even
think about what a programmer should know.  It could provide a topic
list or point system for competence in Python  constructs and aspects.
 It might provide a guideline for other professionals to get an early
pass at competence.

My intuition is that this idea deserves a vigorous, silly, in person
debate.  After which, one person will write "The Purity Test:  Python
Edition", and, more likely than not, no answers will be found.


On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Roderick
Llewellyn<roderick at sanfransystems.com> wrote:
> I'm a male, but I would generally follow the rule that if a requirement is
> listed as, well, a requirement, and I lack it, that would knock me out of
> the running, so I wouldn't bother applying. Companies often complain that it
> takes a lot of their time to interview candidates, and so (especially in bad
> economic times) they resort to filtering candidates as much as possible
> before they actually talk to them. Thus schemes like accolo which are
> designed to save employers as much time as possible. But what is often not
> discussed is that the candidates also spend a lot of time in fruitless
> test-taking, phone screens, preparing customized resumes and cover letters,
> and researching technologies asked for in employment ads so one can come in
> not totally ignorant of some listed requirement. I've sent dozens of such
> applications in the last few years with little response. Many employers
> don't even do you the courtesy of telling you that your application was
> rejected... so you don't even know if your application has "timed out" or
> was rejected within 5 minutes of its receipt. In a bad economy, employers
> "feel their oats", they know they have a lot of desperate candidates to
> choose from (I could quote from Karl Marx on this subject). That's why
> you'll often see evident rudeness on the career site of many company
> websites, things like "if you don't know X forget it" or "if you haven't
> done Y don't bother applying".
> About recruiting firms:
> In my experience of the last 10 or so years, recruiting firms are
> essentially worthless and waste a lot of time. Note that this is not
> intended to apply to any specific individual, but reflects my own dealings
> with such firms. I believe that employers judge recruiting firms largely by
> the number of active resumes in their files (how else?). A number of such
> firms have my resume. About once a year I get a call from these firms
> promising a great position. All I need to do to start the process is send
> the recruiter a fresh updated copy of my resume. I do so and never hear back
> from them, until about a year later when it's next time to tickle the old
> resumes into refreshing themselves. I believe that many of these offered
> positions are phony and are simply designed to call out updated resumes. In
> most cases the recruiters know perfectly well that I have zero chance of
> being employed by their clients based on the resume they already have.
> I remember one firm (I think it was the one that uses a brain as their logo)
> called me about a position. The headhunter asked me if I had good experience
> in technologies A and B. I said yes, didn't you read my resume? He replied
> that he didn't have time to read resumes. Just what value was he adding to
> either the employers' or the candidates' processes? Needless to say I never
> heard from him again. Thank God!
> More on listed job requirements:
> Since even though I'm not currently employed I regard my time as valuable,
> and don't like rejection any more than anybody else, I carefully cull those
> employers to whom I will take the trouble of applying. I agree with Alex
> that my definition of the word "MUST HAVE" is that if you don't have it, it
> doesn't matter if you are Stephen Hawking or even Moses, you're not getting
> the position. No matter how qualified or over-qualified you may be in other
> areas. It is very frequent that employers will list SO many must-haves that
> I seriously wonder if ANYBODY actually knows all of those things. I suspect
> another reason for listing so many "musts" is that it may provide some legal
> protection for the employer. If essentially nobody meets their
> qualifications strictly interpreted, nobody can complain that "hey they
> didn't hire me, they must be prejudiced against me because of characteristic
> X". Hey, you didn't meet the requirements! (well neither did the guy we
> hired, but we liked him better, so there!)
> - Roderick Llewellyn
> _______________________________________________
> Baypiggies mailing list
> Baypiggies at python.org
> To change your subscription options or unsubscribe:
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/baypiggies

More information about the Baypiggies mailing list