> I'm not sure I understand this.
Yes. The following is discussing a different topic to the original, but
anyway:
> In any case, it is wrong to suggest
> that employers are fooled by bits of paper and cannot see their way
> past bullshit artists. True, large educational institutions or
> multinationals can afford to lose millions of dollars on sub-standard
> employees. But for anybody else, hiring new people is a long-term
> investment, which employers treat like any other long-term investment -
> seriously.
>
> The basic process of getting a job is pretty simple - you have to
> convince your prospective employer that you can do what is required
> of you. If you are unable to communicate the extent of your capabilities,
> you will be at a disadvantage. If, OTOH, you have no actual ability
> or intelligence, you have to try to con your way in. This may work
> in extreme cases, but if you intend working for anyone who knows what
> they are doing, this is not an option.
Of course it always ends up a combination of gloss _and_ skill exposition.
> This
> "who you know" factor is important, especially in Sydney, where it
> is important not to introduce unknowns into one's cosy social circle;
> who knows what self-reinforcing delusions they might shatter.
So work for a corporation.
Ryan
Regular pap smears are essential.