Re: Career questions: databases
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 19:51:44 GMT
Not to pound this into the ground, but I think, with any technology, there are various aspects of the technology that one could be proficient in without being proficient in all aspects of the technology. (Perhaps one could postulate that being proficient in all or nearly all aspects of a technology might be a definition of being "expert").
When I worked onsite as a contractor, I was both involved with hiring
individuals, and was hired by individuals. Typically, when one was looking
for a candidate for a position, what was required was that one was
proficient in various aspects of the technology, not all aspects. A person
may say, "I've never done this or that, but I've done this and that," and
that would be enough, since we weren't looking for someone "expert" in the
technology, but merely "proficient" in the technology.
So for someone to put on their resume that they are "proficient" in a
technology because they can work with some aspects of a technology, but not
necessarily all aspects, is, in my opinion, very legitimate. That could be
all that a client is looking for.
So for someone to put on their resume that they are "proficient" in a technology because they can work with some aspects of a technology, but not necessarily all aspects, is, in my opinion, very legitimate. That could be all that a client is looking for.
But I agree that many people put items on their resume if they just
"breathed" on it or had the most basic of experience in it. That's
illegitmate. But not being expert, but being proficient to perform tasks,
even if not all tasks, is, in my opinion, a legitimate reason to put it on
"DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_psoug.org> wrote in message
> Neil wrote:
>> While agreeing with your point about resume fluff, in all fairness, the
>> person claimed he was "proficient" in those technologies, not "expert" in
>> them. At what point does one become "proficient"? That's a good question.
>> But I don't think one needs to be able to field live questions from an
>> audience of developers in order to call oneself "proficient."
> I appreciate that but to me proficiency has a higher standard than,
> perhaps, for you. Would you call a DBA that writes shell scripts to
> back up 10g database proficient? I wouldn't.
> To quote:
> pro·ficient·ly adv.
> Synonyms: proficient, adept, skilled, skillful, expert
> These adjectives mean having or showing knowledge, ability, or skill, as
> in a profession or field of study. Proficient implies an advanced degree
> of competence acquired through training:
> Note: "advanced degree of competence acquired through training"
> Daniel A. Morgan
> University of Washington
> damorgan_at_x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
> Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
Received on Sun Jul 01 2007 - 21:51:44 CEST