Why NOT to go into IT

[philaman01]

IT isn't a consistent field in a sense...
So, if you want to be successful in the IT field, make sure you have another (relevant) skill.

> The thing is which skill? Consider all the possible permutations when you take into account the following: unique IT skills * versions of technologies * specific environment * specific industry experience. The results are limitless!

> The true underlying problem is the reluctance of employers/recruiters to contact an applicant unless their resume mirrors the job spec. So naturally what will you do? You will tailor your resume to include everything that the job calls for. What this really describes is resume fabrication/inflation. It's essentially become a cat-and-mouse game.

 

[Peter.Cort]

Exactly the results are limitless, so you can fill a niche market somewhere. As long as you don't go persuing skills in outdated systems (like windows ME / mac pre OSX, not FORTRAN/COBOL) then you'll fill a market. The same goes for most professions, if you're a business man doing sales and you like screws, nuts, and bolts you're not going to make a good exotic wood flooring salesman. But if you know ubuntu and can do everything from the command line, that's a transferrable skill to another linux distro that a company would look at and go ok, ubuntu is similar to system X which we use, this guy could be good.

To your second point, I don't think that's the case. I think in some cases yes, companies want someone with the exact experience they're looking for, and most times when they don't call you back, i would assume it's because they found people who do have that exact experience, and more! Think of how many people there are in this country who are in IT, there's always going to be someone who fits the experience category either as good, or better then you, and that's something you have to live with, and where your personality and other resume padding skills make it or break it for you. If you're making things up on your resume to fit their bill, then you shouldn't get a call back, if they're not interested in you then that's it, take it as it is.

IT is an extremely quickly growing field and with the way the world is there are specialized markets that computers permeate and if you have the skills to deal with that then you'll find a job. It's easy to be pessimistic about but isn't everything if you focus on the negatives? I think it would be extremely easy to find 5 very solid reasons not to go into any profession and just be a lazy couch potato.

 

[philaman01]

Exactly the results are limitless, so you can fill a niche market somewhere. As long as you don't go persuing skills in outdated systems (like windows ME / mac pre OSX, not FORTRAN/COBOL) then you'll fill a market. The same goes for most professions, if you're a business man doing sales and you like screws, nuts, and bolts you're not going to make a good exotic wood flooring salesman.

> I do not agree that is an accurate analogy; a salesman can learn the product and the company would more than likely give him a chance if he 'sold' himself at the interview. Sales is a transferable skill.

But if you know ubuntu and can do everything from the command line, that's a transferrable skill to another linux distro that a company would look at and go ok, ubuntu is similar to system X which we use, this guy could be good.

> Okay, but what if said company also wants someone who has experience in a Pharma environment, plus knows Oracle, Perl, C++, and Business Objects as well for example. As mentioned, a company will list as many arbitrary skills/conditions as they want and the expectation is that they will get a matching resume.

To your second point, I don't think that's the case. I think in some cases yes, companies want someone with the exact experience they're looking for, and most times when they don't call you back, i would assume it's because they found people who do have that exact experience, and more! Think of how many people there are in this country who are in IT, there's always going to be someone who fits the experience category either as good, or better then you, and that's something you have to live with, and where your personality and other resume padding skills make it or break it for you. If you're making things up on your resume to fit their bill, then you shouldn't get a call back, if they're not interested in you then that's it, take it as it is.

> I find it hard to believe that applicants magically have the specific industry experience, specific tool usage experience, and specified years of experience for every arbitrary item posted on a job spec.

> Let me give you a quick example: a few months ago I applied for an Oracle/Argus position. I have years of Oracle experience, but never used Oracle Argus (for pharma companies). When the recruiter called me and asked me if I had experience with Argus, I told her no, but I expressed to her that I could learn it. She said the client specifically wants someone with Argus experience. My previous experience (in varied industries - including pharma) meant nothing. The concept of transferable skills does not exist; previous field experience not respected unless it specifically matches the job spec. To quote MC Serch of 3rd Bass, "...ever heard of a chef who can't cook?"

IT is an extremely quickly growing field and with the way the world is there are specialized markets that computers permeate and if you have the skills to deal with that then you'll find a job. It's easy to be pessimistic about but isn't everything if you focus on the negatives? I think it would be extremely easy to find 5 very solid reasons not to go into any profession and just be a lazy couch potato.

> IT has become highly specialized, even more than medicine. The problem is it lacks standardization and that is why job requirements are all over the map. The even bigger problem is that thanks to the involvement of guest workers who are notorious for fabricating resumes, companies now expect that they will receive resumes that mirror the job specs. Also, I am not focusing on the negatives; I am generally a very upbeat person. It is just that the above factors have led to this cat-mouse resume game. I am not making any excuses, but merely telling it like it is; facts are facts.

> If a new technique for oral surgery comes out, does the state take a doctor's license away until he/she learns it? If a newly discovered piece by Mozart is discovered, does an orchestra force the pianist to learn it before he can play on stage? If the FDA passes a new drug, does a pharmacist have to go back to school to learn about it before he/she can dispense it?

 

[Peter.Cort]

> I do not agree that is an accurate analogy; a salesman can learn the product and the company would more than likely give him a chance if he 'sold' himself at the interview. Sales is a transferable skill.

> Okay, but what if said company also wants someone who has experience in a Pharma environment, plus knows Oracle, Perl, C++, and Business Objects as well for example. As mentioned, a company will list as many arbitrary skills/conditions as they want and the expectation is that they will get a matching resume.

> Let me give you a quick example: a few months ago I applied for an Oracle/Argus position. I have years of Oracle experience, but never used Oracle Argus (for pharma companies). When the recruiter called me and asked me if I had experience with Argus, I told her no, but I expressed to her that I could learn it. She said the client specifically wants someone with Argus experience. My previous experience (in varied industries - including pharma) meant nothing. The concept of transferable skills does not exist; previous field experience not respected unless it specifically matches the job spec. To quote MC Serch of 3rd Bass, "...ever heard of a chef who can't cook?"

There's a common trend between these three answers. Lack of specific skills, those specific skills while yes you can learn them, they take time to learn. Time is money and quite frankly if I were hiring with a specific skill needed to do the job, I'd want someone who had experience in it, not someone who has knowledge of other things who might be able to pick up something else. I'm not saying that you're not capable of picking it up quickly, but the industry is inundated with people who half-ass their way through because either there isn't anyone better, or the better person costs way too much. I think it depends on the industry, a lot of places need someone to start immediately with less then a week to become acquainted with their specific setup and then start doing what needs to be done the next week. Most of the places like that that come to mind are places where you're the only person doing that. If you're the only Oracle/Argus guy and something happens and they need you to fix something in Argus and you take 2 days to figure out how to do it because you've never used it before and there's a learning curve (which there is to all new things) then that's 2 days that are lost.

Also it's hard to move horizontally into a new company at a high level, it's much easier to grow vertically in a company because that 'adjustment' time is dramatically lessened, and they know what you're capable, remember these companies are judging you based on your resume and nothing else. They have a perception of the industry and who they're most likely to get if they hire someone who meets even 90% of the requirements they want and I don't blame companies for trying to get someone who meets all the capabilities.

> I find it hard to believe that applicants magically have the specific industry experience, specific tool usage experience, and specified years of experience for every arbitrary item posted on a job spec.

There's quite a lot of people in the world, I wouldn't be too surprised by that.

> IT has become highly specialized, even more than medicine. The problem is it lacks standardization and that is why job requirements are all over the map. The even bigger problem is that thanks to the involvement of guest workers who are notorious for fabricating resumes, companies now expect that they will receive resumes that mirror the job specs. Also, I am not focusing on the negatives; I am generally a very upbeat person. It is just that the above factors have led to this cat-mouse resume game. I am not making any excuses, but merely telling it like it is; facts are facts.

There are tons of standardizations. They're called certificates. I don't think certs are the best way to go about it, but in the way of technology and big institutions implementing a base of knowledge assessment, they're pretty good. I think a lot of employers take certs with a grain of salt, especially in relation to 'lifetime certs' as well as when you took them in relation to the cycle of renewal.

> If a new technique for oral surgery comes out, does the state take a doctor's license away until he/she learns it? If a newly discovered piece by Mozart is discovered, does an orchestra force the pianist to learn it before he can play on stage? If the FDA passes a new drug, does a pharmacist have to go back to school to learn about it before he/she can dispense it?

Industries don't work like that though. I'm sure you've run into this yourself, just because something new comes out in the computer industry, are you forced to implement it? In many cases, whatever you're currently running is perfectly suited to what you're doing. If you're remotely good at what you're doing you're aware of what's happening in the industry and you can look at the next update or the next big thing, and say 'will this benefit my company'. A lot of the time it's not worth the cost investment as long as the prior version is still supported. Your point about the FDA passing a new drug, the pharmacist isn't the one giving out the drugs, they're the middle man, the doctor is the one responsible, and the doctor wouldn't prescribe new drug B just because it sounds cool, there's research, and a background knowledge of the patient that has to be done before the doctor prescribes it.

 

[philaman01]

Here is how I look at it: if someone were truly an expert in the tools/skill sets and has seen and done it all, then wouldn't it stand to reason that they could, should, and would be able to get the job done in no more than a month or two (or less, depending on what the scope of the work is).

Let's be honest about something: nobody knows everything about technology. The fact is that there are too many tools, versions, 3rd party proprietary, specific applications of tools, etc. It would be like asking someone to physically count every grain of sand on a beach.

What companies are doing equivalent to division of labor. If someone knows Cognos, they can also learn OBIEE for example; the learning curve is not that steep. A widget is a widget, right? Do you see auto shops who only work on Fords? Or GM? Or Chrysler? Of course you don't!

It is common for physicians and lawyers to join different practices throughout their career (as opposed to job). Would a seasoned doctor who has never used a digital thermometer be disqualified on this basis alone? Of course not. A doctor is a doctor.

Now, let's do a full circle and get back to IT. If the job spec calls for an Oracle 10g programmer, Cognos Developer, C#, SharePoint, and PeopleSoft and I wrote honestly in my resume that I used Oracle 9i, Crystal Reports, VB.NET, and Great Plains, would I still get the call? Highly unlikely!

To me, what the above shows is the arrogance of recruiters/employers and lack of respect for programmers' previous accomplishments/experiences UNLESS it mirrors the job spec. Like I said earlier, it all leads to a cat-and-mouse game.

 

[Lexluethar]

I think your point circles back to what i said earlier. You right some companies and most recruiters get hung up on specific versions instead of looking at the actual skill set of the individual. I think that is a trend at least right now in IT. Not sure it if it will continue going that way or if it's something that is occurring because of the crappy economy and the fact that companies have the ability to be extremely picky because the market is flooded with IT professionals.

Personally think it will come full circle and that when the job market bounces back that there will be less IT professionals unemployed, which will in turn require companies and recruiters to lower their specific standards when hiring.

Also think that more often than not recruiters are UBER specific because they don't understand the job they are hiring for. They don't know those versions, compilers, languages or what skill sets are required to make a good programmer (or IT person in general). They are usually driven by sales (IE placement) and don't care about fitting someone good in a position, they see specifics and will only look at people with those specifics.

 

[tj_extreme]

Exactly the results are limitless, so you can fill a niche market somewhere. As long as you don't go persuing skills in outdated systems (like windows ME / mac pre OSX, not FORTRAN/COBOL) then you'll fill a market. The same goes for most professions, if you're a business man doing sales and you like screws, nuts, and bolts you're not going to make a good exotic wood flooring salesman.

Exactly. It's not just the IT field that is a "cat and mouse" game.

 

[Peter.Cort]

I think your point circles back to what i said earlier. You right some companies and most recruiters get hung up on specific versions instead of looking at the actual skill set of the individual. I think that is a trend at least right now in IT. Not sure it if it will continue going that way or if it's something that is occurring because of the crappy economy and the fact that companies have the ability to be extremely picky because the market is flooded with IT professionals.

Personally think it will come full circle and that when the job market bounces back that there will be less IT professionals unemployed, which will in turn require companies and recruiters to lower their specific standards when hiring.

Also think that more often than not recruiters are UBER specific because they don't understand the job they are hiring for. They don't know those versions, compilers, languages or what skill sets are required to make a good programmer (or IT person in general). They are usually driven by sales (IE placement) and don't care about fitting someone good in a position, they see specifics and will only look at people with those specifics.

I think the job market for IT is pretty good in a lot of areas. I know of a lot of job openings through some staffing companies near me in the greater boston area. There's like 25 from one company alone and there are tons of them around here. Also thinking of it from the perspective of a company, if they're looking to hire someone for an IT related post, that's someone who gets paid to support the company, not to bring them in money. I think it has to do with these economic times that they'd rather hire someone to do exactly what they need them to do at as low a cost as possible, and if they can't find that perfect someone then they'll just hold out for longer and that's someone that they don't have to pay so they can make more money. Think of it, in so many institutions IT is the first place that becomes neglected. In so many public schools they're using dying P4 Dells with maybe 512 ram and a 40gb hard drive, or celeron based laptops that can't hold a charge for more then 25 minutes and are missing all the keys. A company I worked at for a little bit doing some database work was running on windows 2000 server systems. Investing in technology for a lot of places that have been around for a while is a low bang for your buck solution. Yeah you can do a lot more and things are a lot better when you have up to date computers and servers, but at the end of the day when it comes to your bottom line, waiting 10 seconds for your computer to boot up or a file to load from the server isn't worth the 800 for a new computer or 1500+ for 1 or more servers.

 

[Lexluethar]

pete i agree. i think it has been affected the least out of all of the industries. i like in overland park (suburb of kansas city) and there are literally hundreds of it job openings. i just think as you said it is an administrative cost, it doesnt bring in money so most companies neglect it in hard times.

 

[mikesx4911]

I would like to comment about the age of IT workers, I used to think that younger IT workers would be hired over older workers because frankly we work for cheaper, faster normally and we tend to know a lot about the new trendy stuff but I have recently learned. EXPERIENCE is GOLDEN, I try to keep up and study all the time but people with more experience in the field have seen way more than I have and frankly you just cant top that. I think a mix of old with new is where it's at.