I realize that businesses want to draw talent from the largest pool possible, and to do so available positions are often advertised simultaneously across several job market websites with audiences larger than what almost any company could reach on their own. Certainly some steps of the application process must be automated when dealing with, what I can only imagine, is a relatively high number of applicants. Websites like Indeed.com have even automated the phone interview process, having applicants take a robo-call and recording their responses to questions selected by the employer. The result, in my own experience, is an often bleak, one-sided, discouraging and depressing bout of dysfunctional online dating, except the relationship you're looking for is with your future employer.

Are there any HR people on Tildes? If so, I'm curious what this whole process looks like on your side and how it differs from say, twenty years ago. Is the process better? Are the people you hire better? How, on your end, could this process be improved? And most importantly, do you have any advice for getting through this increasingly frustrating first step?

I'm in the midst of an interview process with an employer that insists on an "Introduction to Algorithms"-type test for all of its white-collar workers. Their claim is that it selects for "smart" people. [I'm anxious because my relevant coursework was many years ago, and there's no way I'll have time to master it again before the scheduled test - there's some age bias, noted below.]

Based on review of Glassdoor's comments about this company's interview process and demographics, what they really want is recent college graduates with fresh CIS degrees that they can abuse and use up quickly, giving them no market-relevant skills in the process. The product relies on an obscure, specialized database architecture and elderly front-end code.

However, the company is a market leader in my industry, and I'm interested in working there in a customer-facing technical liaison/project management role because the product is better fitted for task, has better support and customization, and better interoperability than anything else. There's huge R&D reinvestment as well, and the company is just that little bit more ethical in the marketplace than its competitors.

Do you believe that the ability to do sorts and permutations in code genuinely selects for general intelligence, and would you want to work with a population of people who all mastered this subject matter, regardless of their actual job title?

Hello everyone,

I plan on going back to college in the Spring while working full time. I think taking two online courses or a 1-1 split of online / in-person courses per semester would be more than manageable while working full time but my particular job is so slow (office environment) and I'm allowed to study during downtime that I'm considering taking at least three courses per semester. What do you guys think is a non-overwhelming amount of classes to take while working full time and have any of you been in this position as well?

Tildes, I'd like some opinions please! I work in a genetics lab as a research assistant and I've got the opportunity to pursue a PhD under the supervision of the lab director whilst maintaining my current position and salary, with work I'd probably be doing anyway contributing to my thesis.

I feel like this is a pretty good opportunity: I'm not getting any younger and I have a young family, so going back to school to do this on a studentship is not an option, and my employer is willing to fund half the tuition fees and cover materials/ reagents etc. Word in the media is that there is a glut of PhDs at the moment, but I don't have my heart set on an academic career, so I won't be crushed if I end up in industry. I'm based in Europe, so would be looking at taking 3 years for the whole degree, which is coincidentally when my current contract is up.

Has anyone pursued a PhD under similar conditions? What was your experience like? Was getting your PhD worth it (especially in the life sciences/biotech)?

Thanks!

Firefly has a fairly large cast, and I believe this really adds to the different perspectives they can show for any single topic. For this post, I want to discuss what Firefly says about work.

I decided against writing an essay for this, so I thought I'll just mention a few things that stood out to me.

Your job is your adventure

I always found Kaylee's story on how she joined the crew really endearing. She had a love and passion for ships, and let her knowledge (and unspoken hard work) offer her an opportunity to travel and experience new things. I love how her job, as the ship's mechanic, is a part of who she is.

Work can be hard and hard to come by

Ultimately, Firefly is a story about survival. Mal takes jobs that can be dirty, they're not fully equipped for and just a little...illegal. However, you have to work with what you can get with what you have. And there's nothing wrong with doing any job to survive...of course this leads to...

Your job doesn't need to define you, but it can reflect who you are

Inara works a job that comes with a lot of judgement. She takes pride in her work and doesn't let anyone shame her for it, though they definitely do try.

One of my favourite Simon moments is when he has Jayne in the operating chair after learning that Jayne betrayed him and his sister. Simon tells Jayne that he'll always be safe when he's in the chair. Simon is a doctor, and though he obviously has a great ability to do harm, he never will.

Jayne's all about the money. I think it's shown that Jayne would love to do "respectable" work, but doesn't have the opportunity. He would rather play the hero, but can't, so he's all about making as much money as he can. His morals are probably the greyest of the crew. Still, he feels shame, and learns that when you comprise your morals for a payday, that is you. Ultimately, it's not who he wants to be, and definitely not what he wants to be remembered for.

I think there's something really universal about the themes that Firefly has about work. After all, most of us will spend a significant portion of our lives at work, and I think it's not hard to relate at least a little bit.

I posted an article yesterday about name-blind hiring processes, and it got me thinking of discrimination slightly differently.

I actually don't feel that we run into outright racial discrimination as much nowadays. Instead it's more subtle. It's not about technical merit, but about cultural fit. Often times, distilling down to one skill - English (both spoken and written).

It brings up questions such as:

• Can a candidate communicate verbally for the job? (Technical, though sometimes this may be judge harder than for a native English speaker that isn't always clear)
• Do they "get" jokes and other subtleties? (Cultural fit)
• Do they have an accent? How heavy is it?

I believe this is for a couple reasons:

• Candidate just can't display enough charm or charisma during the hiring process
• Raise doubts about a candidate's education/upbringing. This in itself is discriminatory (though location is not a protected class), but some regions are though to train their students in more blunt force manners than skills in problem solving

What do you all think?