nordicengineer

I can totally relate to your take. I've also considered a change out of IT into the educational sector. Problem is that if you'd want that, you'd have to put in quite a lot of years of formal education (I would call it certification). I think you need to set aside almost 2 years to become even a kindergarten educator. So forget the low pay once you become one, consider having a family on hold for 2 years.

Allow me to take a moment and just tell you how sorry I am to read this. I know it is worth nothing, but I feel for you. Kids, medical issues, expat families, etc or even a true accident can flip our lives upside down and many just don't take a moment. "Grow some balls" they say. "Grow some compassion" I say.

Thanks for writing this! We're all so different, socially, stage in life (kids for instance), ways of working, etc. not to mention thinking of how this applies to hiring women. "What? You don't want to grab a drink with me?" Lost for words.

T H A N K S !

> Usually you can get a job by asking a friend to put in a word for you at their place, or just letting them know you're looking.

tl;dr

I mentioned the IQ test because those employers couldn't stop talking about fitting in. Without tests, fitting in = we like you, we like you not, where WE can be very different today than tomorrow. Applying for the same position after knowing that the hiring manager was replaced is not unheard of.

I definitely do NOT want tests of ANY kind to be the norm, but if I'm forced to find a "fit", then I try to take myself out of the picture and balance the team instead. I respectfully reject the idea that this is similar to "measuring skulls" (a comment in the thread).

Thanks for pointing that out. Hopefully I made myself clearer now.

Would you say this math is reasonable?

- 3 companies/year (3y on average at a company) - 2 teams/company (1.5y on average in a team) - max 10 members/team - add a 5x factor meaning you will BOND!!! (closely enough to dream of working again with you) with 50 other people outside of your team, which is crazy if you ask me, but I'm playing along

3x2x60 = 360 people. That's your entire network in 10 years, pure acquaintances, not people that you bonded with.

My humble view is that maybe you bond with 2 team members and maybe another 5 people outside of the team. 3x2x7 = 42 people. Which is actually not far from Dunbar's number of 50 friends and 150 meaningful contacts.

42. That's how many people would actually vouch for you within a 10 year period.

My network is not my problem. Everyone is wonderful and supportive. But you know very well that recommending someone isn't everything. You make it sound like if someone recommends you, then you shortcircuit the interview process and the stars align and you should just say thanks for having a job, any job.

Thanks! FWIW it's not a knee-jerk reaction post, though choice of words can always be better, especially for someone who doesn't have English as their native language.

I'm not irritated. I'm more lost for words. And I honestly wanted to ask others what's their experience. In 2021. In Scandinavia or worldwide. In a so-called "hot market". Post Corona etc.

My examples come from tenS of interviews, maybe even hundreds. It's not 10 interviews. Obviously many have been totally fine, regardless it still ends in a "no, thanks" on any side. But a good chunk of them are light years away from "we have a problem to solve, this is us, this is you, can we work together?"

I truly respect even snarky comments pointing out how rude and infatuated I come out, but my experience is exactly the opposite: everyone seems to be doing things perfectly, except they can't find replacements or more people, and when someone gets interested in joining, they become defensive.

As you point out, one needs to ask the question: is it me the problem? And nobody is perfect, not even close. Not me at least. But that thing is that I am expected to be perfect. Like a comment says: I should learn to lie and pass the polygraph test. Well, I will never do that, so now we know what that will get me (from the same comment).

> being stuck with a boring stack makes them less employable in the long run > "boring" people typically cost more

This is where I know I have a big ask to think outside of the box, but companies don't need to pay extra and that boring environments shouldn't reflect negatively on employees.

Employers can pay the same salary and say 1 day a week, 2 days a week, you can do whatever, you still get paid. And you can get a certification, or you can try out exciting tech on a side project or for a company project even. There are still many ways to keep people happy, competitive etc without "extra" pay. Just thought it's important to highlight that money isn't the only thing.

I hope you'll understand I'm not arguing against you. I can totally understand the adversity, and by all means people can easily use it as a bias, but it merely gauges how good at "if X then Y" one is, which in turn reflects on how clear the job at hand should be. It's not about being smart/er than others, it should be just one datapoint in a sea of tens of datapoints in the search for "a good fit". And all you're looking for are red-flags, not as many checked checkboxes. Then again, any tool can be misused. Point taken.