Prev: assert{ 2.0 } - a new kind of assertion
Next: object-oriented programming explained in 51 lines
From: Gautier on 31 Jan 2008 17:10
Ed Berard:

> It seems that lately, I have been turned down for an increasing number
> of assignments, because I am "overqualified."

It's better to be overqualified than underqualified: you can selectively hide
some qualifications, putting them in the private part of your package (to speak
Ada...).

G.
From: Jeffrey R. Carter on 31 Jan 2008 19:07
Ed Berard wrote:
>
> If you want, you can chck my resume at the bottom of our home
> page:
>
> http://www.toa.com

No, I can't:

Error 404: The Item You Requested Could Not Be Found.

--
Jeff Carter
"Sheriff murdered, crops burned, stores looted,
people stampeded, and cattle raped."
Blazing Saddles
35
From: Phlip on 31 Jan 2008 21:11
Ed Berard:

> It seems that lately, I have been turned down for an increasing number
> of assignments, because I am "overqualified."

We have an opening for XP with Ruby on Rails in Irvine, CA. Our
development is very rapid, with a trivial bug rate, and no formal QA.
(Also we get to see my assert{ 2.0 } in action!;)

Opinionated: Good.

Too busy pontificating to pair, write tests, pass them, and refactor:
Overqualified.

--
Phlip
From: S Perryman on 1 Feb 2008 12:27

Yes. Next question please. :-)


> Ed Berard wrote:

> It seems that lately, I have been turned down for an increasing number
> of assignments, because I am "overqualified."

Leaving aside the usual euphemisms for "over-qualified" (here is another,
a client uses the term when they perceive the work as mundane and you may
find it tedious etc and then not see the work through) ...

Without knowing what the assignments specifically entail (are you at
liberty to expand on this) , it is difficult to say. You could be the
victim of any proportion/combination of said euphemisms.

One is illegal (on paper) . One is rectifiable (even if/though financially
unpalatable) . One is verifiable if the client at least voiced their
concerns regarding their perception of you and/or the work.

But without honest specific feedback from the client : you cannot adapt
accordingly. :-(


Regards,
Steven Perryman

From: xpyttl on 1 Feb 2008 12:08
I do kind of see a disconnect reviewing your resume.

You have product/process architecture experience. This immediately says to
anyone reading, "not a programmer". The company that is going to hire a
process architect is going to be a large one. For that large company, they
are likely to want more than a lone individual. Chances are they will want
a consulting firm that can deliver a variable supply as the needs change.
Besides that, a lot of larger companies are wrapped up in, or getting
wrapped up in, Lean and Six Sigma processes. This is especially true if they
understand the importance of process and might be inclined to hire an
in-house process architect. I see that as missing from your experience.

...


"Ed Berard" <ed.berard(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d91db3d5-4a34-4ec7-bda1-a6ecb770b0f0(a)s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Howdy Folks,
>
> It seems that lately, I have been turned down for an increasing number
> of assignments, because I am "overqualified."
>
> I have been doing a good deal of "architecture tasks," as in:
>
> * product architecture
>
> * product line architectures
>
> * process architectures.
>
> I do tend towards the more formal "C&C" viewpoints. However, I don't
> think that this has much to do with my problem.
>
> If you want, you can chck my resume at the bottom of our home
> page:
>
> http://www.toa.com
>
> Any constructive feedback would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -- Ed


 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: assert{ 2.0 } - a new kind of assertion
Next: object-oriented programming explained in 51 lines