> So you have, at most, about 4 years of industry experience?

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.

> Those two statements are both yours, and they both say essentially the same thing. Attitude 1 gets shown the door, attitude 2 probably gets a second interview.

Uh, except that the second was intended as the explanation of all the cases of not doing the first (dumbing oneself down, being political). I'm basically trying to describe the only scenario (the second) that I've been wrongly demonized and characterized over a number of times. I've just accepted that mastery in a subject will come across as having an "attitude" to some people with a nasty political or cargo-cult agenda in who they select. I know this because I've also landed a few jobs precisely because I did what some consider as having an attitude. It really comes down to the character of the interviewer in many cases. It's basically Russian roulette.

I always try to ask and figure out who they are and what their background is before starting into a particular solution, but even that of course gets attributed as being arrogant about ones own background. You just can't land on the right side of some, really. They've basically already decided, and you are there only to help them come up with a plausible reason to reject you for HR.

I was referring the OP's pointless, abundantly self-serving, and total generalization of new grads as flaky and inexperienced. Not to generalizations about myself beyond the context of this discussion and events I've described, of which I could honestly care less what you _think_.

In my experience, taking the initiative to spend a little unforced time to go politely beyond the question at the white-board, and demonstrate a deeper understanding, after answering the question, is not being pompous or arrogant. This is the exact activity that has got me in trouble.

If you were the interviewer, conveniently labeling your candidates like that, tells me that you're not capable of working with others if you don't want to be shown wrong, or if you perceive a terrifying disparity in skill-set of your entry level candidate, in relation to yourself. http://48laws-of-power.blogspo...

The cases of this I can cite are all dev supervisor to dev interviewee. At one point I was even told this was was going on, and they were trying to put me in a different group out from under that supervisor to avoid the problem. Ultimately, there is no amount of experience that can teach how to prepare for this slandering due to someones inferiority complex. It just happens in my experience, as even a _really_ good answer can trigger it.

I've learned to avoid those companies when that happens, and I've happily moved on. In so doing I've been vindicated about who I am, and sometimes even made them unfortunately upset when they followed up with another opportunity, after their absurd politically driven rejection.

It couldn't be that those pompous assholes are not trying to be pompous at all, and are actually just human beings attempting to demonstrate relevant value and what they can bring to your organization could it? It couldn't possibly be that what they have to say is directly relevant to your development efforts could it?

Thanks for illustrating my point. I predicted your exact post long before I even wrote mine. And there are still people that do listen to what pompous assholes are actually talking about and are actually saying. Those listeners don't rush to judgement, and rather understand that it's just showing talent during a fucking interview. This is funny since I'm usually a humble, polite and a nice person in real life, but I will attack and defeat anyone that engages in the generalizations and bigotry like the OP above, IRL or otherwise, especially when they try to hold there own position through fear, lies and slander.

I was on the job market for a little over 3 months in the southern US a few years ago. As part of rejecting me, it was often an excuse to claim that I had no experience in what were utter trivialities and translatable skill-sets. I once was even rejected for a technical reason not covered in the job description or asked during the interview. I got my BS CS earlier in this decade, and I've done mostly contract work, as I have over 2 years professional experience in multiple languages inclusive of a successful internship, though I've been in and out of industry to do other things.

The hiring "standard" is selectively applied based on successfully not proving the interviewer wrong (even tactfully), not being honest, and not appearing as a threat. Often people in the interview chain were tech school, or self-taught pedantic types, and they especially don't like theorists or those that can run circles around algorithm, logic, and design questions. These kind of interviews happened to me several times before I finally learned the disgusting practice of dumbing myself down, not showing off, and playing nice with those people. My success rate in interviews as a result improved, and I've been working FT as a respected Software Engineer for awhile. I don't think it's a conspiracy. It's just selfish, political, and fear driven behavior. Though by physical appearance, I am not young. I started my BS degree at 28, and I am generally professional & polite, but when I see harmful generalizations like that spewed about new grads, I'm going to speak up and I'm not going to be nice about it. New grads have enough shit to deal with already.

You're not going to stop new people from coming up and presenting better ideas or showing you incompetent, by spreading bigotry and misinformation on /. You'll only create animosity and motive them even more to prove you wrong. But I suspect you will never show this opinion in real life, and give them the opportunity, those you'll just say don't have experience in a skill-set with a two week ramp-up. Pathetic.

In my experience, some employers smokescreen. The complaint for "lack of experience" is often an excuse to provide plausible deniability for rejecting someone when they threaten your position or may show you incompetent, or the new hire doesn't fit your tractible office-political or cargo-cult agenda. Sentiment is one thing, and yes there is risk and economic motives, but it's another to make general statements about all new grads as if we're all part of the collective group of flaky inferiors. That bigoted attitude that he feels necessary to demonstrate on /. for no reason (other than the motive of course, to take a shit on others in a pathetic attempt protect their own position) still pisses me off.

> Since when is it offensive to assume that someone without experience is inexperienced.
That isn't the assertion. He's asserting that if your a new grad, you're without experience and that you're "flaky" (whatever the hell that means, and that is a huge stretch for a fucking 4 year BS university graduate). There are tons of new grads that have experience. He is engaging in bigotry and stereotyping here. This isn't an economist argument against hiring people without experience. It's nasty and likely self-serving labeling and rhetoric.

The OP made general and offensive statements about "new grads". Now go make your straw-man & obligatory economist argument to someone who gives a shit.

Can you give me an idea about which industry or company you work for? I would rather not devote a significant portion of my life in trying to appease bigoted idiots. Thanks.

As long as C continues to serve as the foundation for a number of operating systems, it will remain relevant. To understand its merits as a language alone however, it along with C++ should be used only _after_ learning a high level language that doesn't clearly model allocation or memory within in its syntax, e.g. Haskell, Python, Java, Lisp. Then one can return to C, along with C++ and say "hey, this is an incredibly useful syntax for reasoning about efficient allocation and memory use". It does have competitors in that arena, however it continues to dominate due to tooling, inertia/entrenchment in education, industry and cargo cultism.

When instead critical thinking, reasoning, logic, and philosophy outsell let me know. Tech doesn't matter.

Microsoft is so desperate to get people to supply apps for their platforms, that they are sending Marketers to University students which try to convince them to learn .NET and write software for their tablets through fake workshops and "student sponsored" events. "Learn .Net, get a job!", etc.

This got me thinking about how much money, waste, and energy is being pumped into maintaining this vertical integration with developers. Irregardless, the sheer destructiveness of this "funneling" of young minds into closed technology tracks must be a huge hidden cost on society.