Originally Posted by MattKing
You're almost certainly right, though I don't recall it as quite that restrictive: that's half-memory from a third of a century ago.
On the other hand, what are the employers going to do if everyone does it?
I'm no great fan of Ayn Rand, but the phrase 'consent of the victim' springs to mind.
Originally Posted by MattKing
Excellent point. Please also note that many employers require you to fill out a job application AFTER they've made you the offer!
So there you are with offer in hand for a job you want - and you're going to scratch-out the "truthfulness" statement! :rolleyes:
Last edited by copake_ham; 07-20-2007 at 01:19 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Fair enough. Our views are (as so often when these things come up) far closer than is immediately apparent, and could be more enjoyably discussed over a bottle or two of wine than in the falsely adversarial context of an internet forum, even one so congenial and civilized as this. This goes for much more than just the small quotation given above.
Originally Posted by DKT
I'm afraid creeping credentialism is slowly draining a lot of vitality from the US. Two generations ago most jobs did not require a degree, but did require a period of some form of apprenticeship, usually not so labelled. Thus, for example, journalists started out as copyboys. In part because of the overwhelming aversion to risk that has come to pervade american life, companies increasingly require a degree in a designated field for any job, even those for which no reasonable academic preparation exists. This leads to all sorts of dissonance. I once worked in a Gov't agency where the entire recruiting committee consisted of senior people who, by the standards that Congress had imposed after they started their careers, would not have been eligible to be interviewed upon graduation from college. I have met others whose sole obstacle to further professional advancement is the lack of a particular degree. Sadly, one of the more sought after degrees has become Business. I say sadly, because I have yet to see a business school impart much usable knowledge that couldn't more easily be obtained through a more academic discipline. I am also reminded that when my grandfather retired from a Fortune 50 company half a century ago, he taught in the business school of the local university. At the time, he was the only member of the business school faculty who had any experience outside academia.
As for Roger's question about why the two countries are so different, I think it ties to the litigious excesses on this side of the ocean, some of which are connected to the reasons cited by George. A second factor is the difference in scale between the two nations. Due to the higher mobility and greater size of the US, reputations are a lot less commonly known. And given the litigious nature of our society, references are not as reliable as needed. All of these factors push employers toward a paper based, objective, process for weeding out applicants. And that in turn forces people to acquire pieces of paper that substitute for the need to evaluate actual performance.
As I think further, this trend probably goes back to well before World War II, given the reference in the Wizard of Oz.
not the gov't ones. you wouldn't even get an interview without the application. if you look at the link above--that job description is pretty cloe to mine actually and what I had to fill out. when I applied for a Fed job, well about 18 yrs ago I guess, the application was so long I felt like I was doing my taxes.
Originally Posted by copake_ham
the job applications pale in comparison to some of the stuff you have to sign afterwards. like having to ask permission to do side work on your own time. every year I fill out forms saying I own all my own equipment, and if I do a sidejob I have to get permission first. I once filled out a 5 page form of nothing but check boxes next to every conceivable bodily motion, muscle stress or position that a person would encounter during the course of their duties, for I presume safety purposes. or all the forms about monitoring. I had to fill out something once that said that I understood that I couldn't talk about side work with coworkers or solicit sidework on the job. I presume someone got caught somewhere for running a business on the side, and so everyone else had to pay for it by signing this thing. The kicker was that I signed it--a week later I got a call from the people making us sign this (in another building far away) from someone I didn't even know--they looked me up through the network of staff photographers, and I was the first one they called. yep--you guessed it--they wanted to know if I did any side work. HA! I was like, are you kidding me? Is this is a set up? forget it. I told them to look in the yellow pages, and hung up....really bizarre sometimes.
so, fill out the applications, get your job. it's not the end of the world.
my opinions only/not my employers.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by DKT
Having once worked for the Fed Gov't, I understand that the application is almost always the start of the process.
However, in the private sector, many professionals are given job offers on the basis of their resumes and interviews with the hiring managers. Only then, after a job is actually offered*, do they meet with HR where a formal application is filled-out with the "truthfulness" statement together with other paperwork like insurance forms etc.
*In these instances, the Offer Letter will invariably state that the job offer is subject to verification of education, past employment etc.
And all, remember this - what employer would possibly be interested in hiring someone who refused to attest to their honesty? Few employers that I know of in legitimate business enterprises are interested in hiring dishonest people. It's just not good business.
Finally, I have seen in this thread where an individual who works as a freelancer has willy-nilly advised job applicants for regular employment positions to lie, falsify their credentials and despoil job applications. Beyond the fact that this is not a very wise job hunting strategy - it arises from some kind of atavistic mentality that the prospective employer is some kind of "enemy" of the prospective employee. It certainly bespeaks of someone who probably hasn't worked in a corporate environment in a long time, if ever.
george--I know, that's true. I worked for a newspaper owned by one those big chain conglomerates that run everything now, and it was the same way. I got the job, then filled out the application, which was about I guess 3 pages maybe, I can't remember, it seems a long time ago. It was mostly all the payroll and social security stuff, insurance and personal contacts for emergencies and all that. Nothing to get worked up about in terms of "personal freedom". the other forms are all about liability really, or CYA things for both the employees and the employers. I suspect a lot of it has to do with people abusing the system--like lying on job applications for example--and then everyone has to pay because of a few rotten apples more or less.
that's pretty much how I'm gettting credit for all the photography classes, it's the other, non-photography ones that are of greater concern to me right now.
I thought ISO2k was another factor in job decriptions and qualifications.
And the 'stupid label guy' putting a stupid label on your back with your description (Dilbert).
I get a laugh over the signs with descriptions in machine shops on the machines...if you don't know a lathe from a drill press, so you NEED a sign on it? Maybe you should keep your hands in your pockets and watch from the bleachers.
OK, I'll make this one 'binge' OT posting...
Job qualifier stories:
1) I too worked for a newspaper once. Several (12) applicants for a position were taken out to lunch to a nice restaurant where the butter was preformed into elegant, but unnatural, shapes.
Three candidates were quickly culled, the two who popped the butter sculptures into their mouths, thinking they were mints and the third who tried to catch himself and fumbled it after seeing the first two react.
2) Already-hired employee (different place) spraying flammable aerosol solvent over a trash can was inspired to light the vapors with a cigarette lighter. Employee minus facial hair was dequalified and escorted to medical care then out the door.
Last edited by Murray@uptowngallery; 07-24-2007 at 01:32 AM. Click to view previous post history.