Re: Ye Olde Tarheel State...not hiring?

[Peter Gold <pgold -at- NETCOM -dot- COM>]

From the employer's side consider: would you hire someone at full pay who
is not fully trained and with a successful track record in what you need
the new hire to do pretty quick after coming board?

Also from the employer's view: do you have time and resources to invest
in training a new hire to the career-level-skill you need? Would it be
worthwhile to do this when a search is likely to result in someone
trained to that level?

Not to disparage the value of an advanced degree, but to point out the
shift in the job market in the last few years (read books on how to
search for jobs): employers now want typically 90% to 95% or more "fit"
in their candidates unless there's a reason to accept someone for
training (like a training subsidy or incentive). "Transferable skills" is
not nonger valuable to the employer, since the time lag is a cost issue.
"marketable skills" is the issue, and if you read it as "marketable
skills NOW, FOR THIS POSITION" it will give you the idea of how employers
think.

A technical writing (or other career-oriented) course should include some
information about the reality of the employment picture in that career,
to be complete, or at least point the student to an appropriate  source of
information.

Good luck,

Peter Gold

[snipped even more}

On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Jane Bergen wrote:

> On 23 Nov 96 at 9:55, Christy Dawn Langley wrote:


> > full tech writing positions, but, odd as it seems to me, for
> > marketing positions -- all of which I have lost to candidates with
> > more "experience." A huge barrier to employment for me seems to be

> (snipped for brevity)

> > positions in North Carolina. Every ad (with the exception of one
> > thus far) requires the future employee to have 3-5 yrs. of