The right way to place an job ad.
If I were an employer looking for a technical assistant, this is what I would write :
Looking for a technical person to assist in daily activities in and around the office, some technical experience is required of course, one or more years in an accredited college, demonstrated skills in both hardware and software packages, networks, demostrated knowledge in familiarity with tools, devices such as testing equipment and an ability to think for yourself with little to no supervision.
If I were an employer looking for a business/administrative assistant, this is what I would write :
Looking for a business assistant to assist in the daily activities. You will be apart of a highly professional enviorment, responsible for time sensitive projects, graphs, charts and you will be expected to perform at a high level, knowledge and familiarity with most forms of Microsoft products such as Word, Office, Excell and Outlook are required.
If I were an employer, the last thing I would list is what you see missing, degrees or certifications which mean absolutely nothing.
What do they mean if anything? That someone had the money to waste on sitting in a classroom for half, one or more years while an idiot stood in front of them, scribbling on a black board, and for the most part ran their mouths onward about what will apply very little to any actual scenario in the workplace.
The real selection process is in the interview room.
Most of you say this can't be done without setting much higher guidlines, because so many others will send in resumes and applications while presuming they can do the work, they really can't.
Not the case. A true intelligent employer can sift through by hand piles and piles of paper and with real common sense weed out themselves ( no scanning software required ) what are obviously under or over qualified applicants.
Anyone 60 years old and a former CEO is not suited to be a technical assistant. Any 16 year old high school freshman with a learner's permit is in no shape to be an executive assistant.
See where I'm comming from?
But as I say, what ticks me off is that most jobs employers post, just about anyone with enough skill, familiarity and an ability to tie all of what they know together to be just as effective an employee as anyone.
Saves time, saves paperwork, saves sanity.
Any responses?
- Thanks for reading this message.
If you were the employer you could do just that. Establish the standards and criteria for the jobs that you want performed. You would receive resumes that met those criteria. You would pay the market rate for those resources, you would get what you paid for.
Of course one would hope that you had a proof reader prior to you placing those ads.
But you are not the employer. You are the applicant. So long as you are the applicant you will have to deal with the sad fact that 98% of the employers in todays market disagree with you on the standards and criteria for the two jobs that you have identified as slightly interesting to you.
The Technical Assistant isn't bad. Depending on the rate of pay this might actually fly but you don't see alot of these in the market. Maybe a small business as a part time role. There is a thought for you by the way.
The other, never going to happen.
What am I missing?
That someone had the money to waste on sitting in a classroom for half, one or more years while an idiot stood in front of them, scribbling on a black board, and for the most part ran their mouths onward about what will apply very little to any actual scenario in the workplace.
For once, I am not trying to be facetious re X, but what does he mean? "half, one or more years" and so on.
I am not familiar with technical school requirements for various certifications they offer, is that what he alludes to? It's been years since I attended college, but I know that the standard degree program is still 4 years.
All seriousness aside, it would be nice if you could take a competency exam in some of these fields. At one time, most states allowed anyone to take the Bar exam. I suppose the states could allow anyone to take the professional engineer exam, but would anyone hire a licensed engineer who didn't have a degree? By the way, the exam is a bear too.
I always get a rise from my non-industry friends when I tell them you need a state license to design a three story building, but we don't need no stinking badges to design a space shuttle! Then again, we do keep loseing tiles...
Another thing. The next time you fly, look for the UL seal on the aircraft, like the on that's on your toaster. I'll save you some time, we don't need Underwriter's Labortory either!
That's what I told my boss the other day. The wiring is rated for 10 Amps, but I'm proposing raising it to 12 and not upgrade the circuit. He asked if we can do that. I replied, "Who's going to stop us, Underwriter's Laboratory? They don't even have the clearance to get in the door, we can do what we want. After all, we're rocket scientists!
I break myself up sometimes.
Sorry, I was amusing myself so much, I forgot my response to your post. Based on some of your other posts, wouldn't you end your ad with,
"Idiots only need respond"
I must not have developed much esteem with someone when I was newshopper. I noticed my posts quit posting. Probably the sexual innuendo. Why post here if it's no fun?
Employers pick the candidates with college educations because usually college graduates are going to be a more well rounded individual than one without the education. Of course, someone without a higher education like xttwo is going to say that further education isn't important or relevant in the working world. That, of course, is not being realistic.
It makes perfect sense that an employer is going to pick the candidate who has all of the qualifications needed to perform the particular job at hand. That means they need to see proof of what you have accomplished by seeing documented experience or education in the way of employment. Just because a person has something listed on their resume doesn't necessarily mean they can or did do what it says. Former employers, co-workers, teachers are the references to verify much of what is on a person's resume.
In addition, the interview comes into play for an opportunity to see how the employee communicates. They want to see if the employee is going to mesh with the company's culture. They want to see the candidate's attitude, their appearance and the overall way they hold themselves. And if they are a skilled interviewer, they are going to ask probing questions to verify what the candidate has stated on their resume.
Hiring any employer without covering all the bases in the employment process is what causes the waste of time, money and paperwork. By not putting all of the important information that is necessary for a particular job (and there are a number of jobs out there that DO need a college education) in a job ad is not a smart move by an employer.
But as I say, what ticks me off is that most jobs employers post, just about anyone with enough skill, familiarity and an ability to tie all of what they know together to be just as effective an employee as anyone.
The candidate who may have enough skill, familiarity and an ability to tie all of what they know together does not mean they are going to make just as an effective employee as anyone. It's great that someone may think so highly of themselves that they believe they do any job out there if someone would give them a chance, but I would bet actually getting into the shoes of a particular position and actually doing it will produce a different result. A logical person is not going to say they can do everything if they have never done everything.
The employer is more than likely not going to take a risk on someone that "may" turn out to be as effective (more likely when they have entry level positions), they are going to want a sure thing and will take the candidate with the demonstrated experience and/or education, along with the right attitude and personality for the particular position - the total package - someone who can dive right in and do the job.
Hiring someone who they think may be effective and then training them and finding out they just don't work out and really aren't as effective costs the company money. That's not what smart employers do.
With the competition for jobs out there you have to stand out and get the attention of the employer. Having an education is going to help you. Having experience is going to help you. If you have been unemployed (and many people have dealt with downsizing and restructuring), doing productive things during your unemployment is going to help you. When I was out of work, I went to several agencies and took temp jobs while I continued to look for permanent work. They paid low wages, but it gave me additional experience and references who could verify my work ethic and performance. I didn't sit at home or the library and apply for jobs online, researching jobs and tinkering with other things on my own. I got out there and talked to people. I didn't sit on a job and simply observe. I got involved.
Construction is a sketchy industry, being a building engineer is something anyone can do, I think, but I don't criticize the reason why people ask for licenses.
Lawsuits.
Same principle for education and medicine.
Unless you're educated and licensed you open the employer up to liability.
The jobs I'm referring to that employers should lower their standards are employers that suffer no liability at all.
It's unlikely that me being an executive, technical assistant, or low-key / upscale office clerk will pose some risk to the clientle'.
Tell me the last time a small or big business that got sued on account of their people not being up to snuff on their ABC's and 123's?