If you sum all the contracts I've done, more. But I think even a few months of job hunting is enough to draw the conclusions that I have. So I'm not sure where you're going with this.
> If you're counting your "successful internship" as part of your 2 years of industry experience, then you're pretty damned inexperienced.
Oh of course, I don't have the years of an ongoing-job-in-a-company experience. Really, please explain to me what that has to do with the points that I've raised. Though I think that even a year in the wrong company is enough to draw the points that I have. You're reaching pretty hard to show my youthful inexperience as proof of invalidity of my argument, rather than simply stating that this "doesn't reflect my experience" or some such.
> that suggests you are in the "unreliable / flaky / unlikely to stick around long enough to make training you worthwhile" category.
Yet another stupid and ridiculous generalization. Please continue, maybe you and the OP could get together, chain smoke and start a beer pounding podcast about how terrible and flaky new grads are, how they should never be hired even if they clearly prove themselves, and that you have absolute moral authority on the matter due to all those years in industry.
> No, the standard is evenly applied in using legitimate technical objections to keep know-it-all
That reasoning would work, except in my case the labelling happens _after_ already having politely and tactfully proved myself technically to the interviewer. . For no cause at all, it's basically the last excuse used when they really have nothing else left. Do you even read the threads before posting and judging me?
> That's why they find a technical detail they can use to reject you and find someone who... ISN'T an asshole.
Interesting, so I suppose that explains why I've been accepted for roles, for the exact reasons that others attribute as being an asshole with an attitude problem. Oh wait, it doesn't.
Or maybe we can just admit that there are some people that will go to any stretch to protect themselves from being shown as ignorant or wrong, no matter how politely or tactfully they are shown to be wrong (please see my other thread, I'm not going to respond to same non-sense twice).
The only thing I've learned from this is that telling someone they have an attitude problem is one of the most convenient excuses to reject them, when they've already proven themselves for the role. Pretty pathetic, but that's human nature, whatever gives you a plausible excuse to send to HR I guess.
> Here's the best job-hunting tip you'll ever get: Stop assuming you're smarter than everybody you interview with - you're almost certainly not.
Everyone? Really? Is that what you think? I don't remember having ever claimed that. Do you have a legitimate argument here? Or are you just throwing shit out there to see what sticks?
Please do keep posting, labelling, and generalizating. You're winning, and you're really doing the OP a favor. Please continue.