Rant: "expert" skill level asked for

Techytach

Came from an interview where "expert skill level" was thrown around way too much. This was for a level 1 helpdesk. No you don't need an MSCE and CCIE for a 15$ an hour job resetting passwords.

Do they really think they are going to get experts? Or am I supposed to exaggerate and claim to be one?

DoubleNNs

There are some people out there with 10+ years of help desk experience...

danny069

They're not going to get an MCSE or a CCIE for that kind of money, or expert level anything for that matter. What are they smoking?

Russell77

How do you become an expert? There is no degree that says you are an expert. There is no test that says you are an expert. You can be an expert just by calling yourself one. Better yet have your friend call you one. I love watching news programs that interview experts. So and so is a fashion expert. This guy is an aviation expert. What does it all mean? Did the fashion expert not wear white after Labor Day. Did the Aviation expert not crash a plane? Expert is the best meaningless term ever invented. Oh and then there it the good ole SME. You can't prove that you are one so how can you be one?

dave330i

Russell77 wrote: »

How do you become an expert? There is no degree that says you are an expert. There is no test that says you are an expert. You can be an expert just by calling yourself one. Better yet have your friend call you one. I love watching news programs that interview experts. So and so is a fashion expert. This guy is an aviation expert. What does it all mean? Did the fashion expert not wear white after Labor Day. Did the Aviation expert not crash a plane? Expert is the best meaningless term ever invented. Oh and then there it the good ole SME. You can't prove that you are one so how can you be one?

Expert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z6pVCfACjE

AverageJoe

You haven't given a whole lot of information, but just to look at it from a different perspective:

You're slamming the pay of a job that you interviewed for? Seems like you shouldn't have interviewed.

And you have your CCNA and you don't consider yourself an expert in any help desk related areas/functions? I'd expect a CCNA to have some level of expertise. You didn't give the context of the expert comments, so impossible to know what you mean. But really, how many passwords do you have to reset before you're an expert at it? How many customers do you have to help before you're an expert at customer service? You many not be an expert in everything (who is?), but I bet you're an expert in some areas and that your expertise is growing.

Obviously getting a CCIE for a $15 an hour position seems farfetched, but I'm not so sure it's completely unreasonable for an MCSE. I've heard of high schools incorporating certs like MCSE and Cisco into their trade programs, so I'm guessing there are plenty of those kids who would jump at $15 an hour resetting passwords.

To me it sounds like the interview didn't go well and you're rationalizing why by telling yourself the company had unrealistic demands and low wages. Okay, great. So no skin off your nose for not getting the job! You got to practice your interviewing techniques and you learned some things to be on the lookout for in future job postings. Take that as a positive and learn from it.

Just my 2 cents...

volfkhat

Techytach wrote: »

No you don't need an MSCE and CCIE for a 15$ an hour job resetting passwords.
Do they really think they are going to get experts?

You should have said THAT straight to their Face.

Result: You probably won't get the job... but you will definitely feel better :]

Trucido

All of the Level 1 help desk jobs i've been to in the past 6 years have been pretty easy to get. Yes they're $13-18/hr but hey, i've been doing it without certs the whole time.

I'd say with your CCNA though you should probably look into like a NOC / IOC kind of gig rather than Level 1 Help Desk. Unless you find a good company that offers internal promotions frequently... its not really worth it unless you dont have a resume.

mbarrett

In the town I used to live, a lot of the IT workers are non-US residents would have zero problem saying they have 12 years experience on every single thing the employer listed in the job description, claiming they were an "expert" on whatever system the job asked for, etc. It's all part of the game, being able to talk your way into the job. I guess if you want a job badly enough, it's ok to BS everyone during the hiring process, no sense of honest self-assessment is needed as long as you can get the job done (even half-assed) and are willing to go through life that way.

Having said that, I think the employer is just looking for people with some self-confidence as a way to screen hundreds of applicants for a relatively easy job.

ITHokie

AverageJoe wrote:

You haven't given a whole lot of information...

And yet, from the scant information you were able to discern that

AverageJoe wrote:

it sounds like the interview didn't go well and you're rationalizing why by telling yourself the company had unrealistic demands and low wages.

Alrighty, then.

OP is right, the term "expert" is used far too loosely in general, including in job descriptions.

AverageJoe

ITHokie wrote: »

And yet, from the scant information you were able to discern that.

Umm, yes, that is what I discerned from the scant information. I said as much, and I caveated by indicating there wasn't much information, that I was offering a different perspective, and that it was just my opinion.

The term "expert" may be used too frequently, but it means a lot in context. I do not think it's unrealistic for a company to look for someone with expertise in the help desk role. As the OP said, it was a level 1 help desk, so I can certainly infer what kind of skills are considered expert in that role.

Now I agree that if the employer really was hoping for a CCIE to take the job that they'll likely be disappointed, but OP didn't say the company actually said that. I read it as his reaction to their use of the word expert.

I stick to my presumption that hearing an employer say they want an expert for the help desk does not -- or should not -- mean CCIE or other super advanced experience and skill set. Just as when I say I want a doctor with expertise to give me a physical it doesn't necessarily mean I'm expecting a neurosurgeon or cardiologist to do it. Expertise is both widespread and relative.

And it's still just my 2 cents.

OctalDump

Some places are just really, really risk adverse, aren't quite sure what they need, and just ask for everything. There's also an unreasonable expectation that candidates can 'hit the ground running' in entry level jobs. The strange idea is that because they aren't paying you much, it is too expensive to spend time training you.

On a related note, I was listening to a neuroscientist talk the other day about how "stupid people don't know that they're stupid" ie the more competent you are, the more aware you are of your skill level in relation to others and of your own failings. So, when asked to self rate if you are 'expert', people who aren't expert will rate themselves as expert because they don't understand what expert means, and they don't understand their own actual skill level.

The end result is that if employers use vague terminology like this, they'll probably end up getting worse quality candidates. If they use very explicit, concrete, measures (eg, can you apply a group policy to a subset of users? How would you do that?), then they will get a better insight into the actual skill level of candidates.

So in short, don't worry too much about it. Most of us are idiots and don't even realise it.

DoubleNNs

OctalDump wrote: »

Most of us are idiots and don't even realise it.

yayyyyyy

YesOffense

Eh, you're at the entry-level, save your rants for later, you'll need it. Too early for your spirit to start breaking down.

ITHokie

AverageJoe wrote: »

Umm, yes, that is what I discerned from the scant information.

Ouch. Well, since we're doing the 2 cents thing, I think it's probably best not tell someone they sucked up an interview when we know so little about what happened. That's just me.

OctalDump wrote: »

On a related note, I was listening to a neuroscientist talk the other day about how "stupid people don't know that they're stupid" ie the more competent you are, the more aware you are of your skill level in relation to others and of your own failings...

So in short, don't worry too much about it. Most of us are idiots and don't even realise it.

Ha! This is why folks with high self-awareness make better employees.

Mike7

OctalDump wrote: »

On a related note, I was listening to a neuroscientist talk the other day about how "stupid people don't know that they're stupid" ie the more competent you are, the more aware you are of your skill level in relation to others and of your own failings. So, when asked to self rate if you are 'expert', people who aren't expert will rate themselves as expert because they don't understand what expert means, and they don't understand their own actual skill level.

Yup, reminds me of the four stages of competence; unconscious incompetence => conscious incompetence => unconscious competence => conscious competence.

OctalDump wrote: »

So in short, don't worry too much about it. Most of us are idiots and don't even realise it.

And some are experts and do not realise it. To them, the knowledge is so "second nature" that they are surprised that others do not know about it.

Key is to understand where you stand on the competency scale and be open minded. Time to work on that self-awareness piece.

AverageJoe

ITHokie wrote: »

Ouch. Well, since we're doing the 2 cents thing, I think it's probably best not tell someone they sucked up an interview when we know so little about what happened. That's just me.

Oh, please. Someone posted a public message on a public forum and I gave a public response intended to share an alternative perspective. So you think my post sounded judgmental -- and in response you posted two judgmental responses regarding my post to tell me I shouldn't be judgmental.

My intent was to help. I offered an alternate explanation for something the OP seemed upset about. Maybe I could have worded it better, and I'll try to be more careful about that, but maybe you should consider taking your advice as well.

How about we just let it be, friend.

Thanks!
Joe

volfkhat

Mike7 wrote: »

Yup, reminds me of the four stages of competence; unconscious incompetence => conscious incompetence => unconscious competence => conscious competence.

Whoa....
That is freak'in DEEP :]

Mike7

volfkhat wrote: »

Whoa....
That is freak'in DEEP :]

In layman's terms.

Unconscious Incompetent : You think you are "expert" and you know everything when actually you do not => "stupid people don't know that they're stupid"

Conscious Incompetent : You realize that you do not know anything => "I am stupid but I am learning"
Conscious Competent : You know something => "I am not stupid but not expert yet"

Unconscious Competent : You know it so well that sometimes you wonder why others do not => "This is so easy and logical, why are there so many stupid people around?"


A good example is learning how to drive. You start from "driving and parking seems easy, just step on it and go!" and go all the way to "You idiot! Do you know how to drive? I can even drive with my eyes closed!"

ITHokie

AverageJoe wrote: »

So you think my post sounded judgmental -- and in response you posted two judgmental responses regarding my post to tell me I shouldn't be judgmental.

There is no problem with making judgments based on facts. The difference between your post and mine is that the information I had supports my judgment whereas yours did not. You even admitted that the OP didn't provide much information, but somehow concluded that they screwed up the interview. Also, please note that my statement was ribbing you for the "just my 2 cents" defense. If you didn't detect some sarcasm, I assure you it's there.

AverageJoe wrote: »

Maybe I could have worded it better, and I'll try to be more careful about that, but maybe you should consider taking your advice as well.

Once again you misunderstand. Your judgment was based on speculation, mine was not. My "advice" was to avoid making judgments when we don't know what happened. I know you made an unsubstantiated conclusion (it's there for all to see), so my judgment was based on facts.

AverageJoe wrote: »

My intent was to help.

Since we don't really know the backstory, let's speculate for a minute that the OP is one of the conscious competents that Mike7 referred to and is honest in conveying their skills to prospective employers. Do you think it's possible that they would be frustrated by employers asking for expert skills on a lvl 1 helpdesk? And that they might suspect other candidates are not as honest about their skills? How helpful do you think your comment about screwing up the interview would be then?

On the other hand, if they really did interview poorly, your comments probably would be helpful (although they could be worded differently). It all comes back to knowing what actually happened.

bettsy584

It's normally stupid or mis-informed recruitment/HR people that throw they terms around.

It also comes down to what some people consider an "expert", for me it's someone with 5+ years full time experience in a certain area. If you have an official certification, maybe 4 years.

AverageJoe

ITHokie wrote: »

There is no problem with making judgments based on facts. The difference between your post and mine is that the information I had supports my judgment whereas yours did not.

I guess I see it differently. Obviously _I_ think the information I had supports my judgment. The facts? The fact that OP was frustrated that the employer was asking for too high a skill level and the fact that the OP didn't think he should have to exaggerate his skills to be competitive for the job. Yes, to me those facts indicate the interview didn't go as well as it could. Heck, just the overall tone of the post told me the interview didn't go as well as it could have.

ITHokie wrote: »

You even admitted that the OP didn't provide much information, but somehow concluded that they screwed up the interview.

Yes, there wasn't a lot of information, but now I've explained why I thought (and continue to think) the way I did. If I were weighing evidence, despite there being very little info given, more of that info is indicative of a bad interview than a good interview.

ITHokie wrote: »

Also, please note that my statement was ribbing you for the "just my 2 cents" defense. If you didn't detect some sarcasm, I assure you it's there.

Oh, believe me, I detected sarcasm ... see how that works, we can sometimes, based on context and delivery, we can discern information even if it's not explicitly stated. See what I did there? <smile>

But what I did miss was the ribbing... I'll assume you mean good-natured ribbing. I didn't read your sarcasm originally as being good-natured. I just thought you had an ax to grind with me for some reason. But when I re-read it as two guys chatting a bit, maybe over a beer or a coffee, it does lighten the mood.

ITHokie wrote: »

Once again you misunderstand. Your judgment was based on speculation, mine was not. My "advice" was to avoid making judgments when we don't know what happened. I know you made an unsubstantiated conclusion (it's there for all to see), so my judgment was based on facts.

But see, there you go again. See, my conclusion was not unsubstantiated. See, I think you're confusing my guess based on what was written with knowing definitively what happened. If I knew for sure what happened I would have stated it as fact, but instead I gave my substantiated opinion based on the evidence I observed, small though it was.

See, if I walk outside and see a puddle but it's not raining, my substantiated opinion may be that it looks like it recently rained. I may be incorrect, but there is evidence (the puddle) to support my opinion that it looks like it rained. It's just not conclusive evidence. There might even be countering evidence, like a nearby fire hydrant spouting water. In this case, I may well be wrong about how the interview went, but I based my conclusion on the fact that I saw a puddle and there was no leaking fire hydrant nearby...

ITHokie wrote: »

On the other hand, if they really did interview poorly, your comments probably would be helpful (although they could be worded differently). It all comes back to knowing what actually happened.

So... you're saying that if I'm right then my comments are probably helpful, but if I'm wrong then not so much. Yep, that we absolutely agree on!

By the way, what helpful comments did you provide the OP? And how do you think the interview went?

tmtex

Many entry level, zero experience Helpdesk jobs require CCNA and ITIL. WHY ????? its not a networking job. IMO its a popular term these days so they list it and require it for some reason. Oh and you must a 4 yr degree

Oh I work with a guy who is in his 50's. He is like a "Professional Helpdesk guy", No certs, been doing it since the 80's or something like that, doesn't make much but is a happy guy.

E Double U

Techytach wrote: »

Came from an interview where "expert skill level" was thrown around way too much. This was for a level 1 helpdesk. No you don't need an MSCE and CCIE for a 15$ an hour job resetting passwords.

Do they really think they are going to get experts? Or am I supposed to exaggerate and claim to be one?

Just claim to be an expert password resetter that is working towards the CCIE.

Pseudonym

OctalDump wrote: »

On a related note, I was listening to a neuroscientist talk the other day about how "stupid people don't know that they're stupid" ie the more competent you are, the more aware you are of your skill level in relation to others and of your own failings. So, when asked to self rate if you are 'expert', people who aren't expert will rate themselves as expert because they don't understand what expert means, and they don't understand their own actual skill level.

I was having this conversation with someone a while back. You don't happen to have a link to this talk do you?

Chinook

This is up there with people asking for 10 years experience in Windows Server 2012 or 5 years experiencing deploying Windows 10, etc, etc, etc. It's typically recruiters and/or HR folk who really don't know what they're talking about. Another is a job ad that asks for you to be fluent in nearly every technology out there. It is simply impossible.

Truth is a company asking for all those skills may place you in a role which is over your head & you end up having to deal with problems beyond your skill set. Or you end up with a network that's poorly designed & tickets go through the roof (and so does your stress levels).

Never underestimate HR & certain IT hiring managers. As with anything else in the world, some are very competent, some..less so.

jeremywatts2005

I know when I was working desktop support back in the early 2k's it was horrible. They wanted an MCSE for a help desk job. No joke HR folks were going nuts. Even before that it was MCSE or CNA for Novell. It was crazy. It should have been entry level and the pay sucked for the roles. Now I am seeing a similar trend in security where companies are asking for a CISSP to be a level one security analyst and they will pay 65K. Yes I have seen it way too many times a few companies come to mind right now that have crazy requirements for entry level jobs.

OctalDump

Pseudonym wrote: »

I was having this conversation with someone a while back. You don't happen to have a link to this talk do you?

It was Dr Dean Burnett talking about his book 'The Idiot Brain' and related stuff. Not sure if the link will work in your part of the world, but he also has a blog covering some of the same ground. One of the articles talks about why people are attracted to 'stupid people' as leaders, which he says is because stupid people tend to be overconfident, and confidence is attractive in a leader (even when they are wrong).

ITHokie

AverageJoe wrote: »

The fact that OP was frustrated that the employer was asking for too high a skill level and the fact that the OP didn't think he should have to exaggerate his skills to be competitive for the job.

Speculation. For all we know the interview may have gone well, but the OP was expecting to hit a home run but wasn't able to pull that off because of unrealistic expectations for the role.

AverageJoe wrote: »

Yes, to me those facts indicate the interview didn't go as well as it could.

Shifting the goal post. There is a big difference between "the interview didn't go well" and the "the interview didn't go as well as it could." The second statement is far more benign and carries a much different meaning and connotation.

AverageJoe wrote: »

See, I think you're confusing my guess based on what was written with knowing definitively what happened.

You're right, you made a guess. Rather than being confused, that's what I've been telling you all along. You are speculating. There is difference between a substantiated opinion and a guess.

AverageJoe wrote: »

Oh, believe me, I detected sarcasm ... see how that works, we can sometimes, based on context and delivery, we can discern information even if it's not explicitly stated. See what I did there? <smile>

Glad to hear it.

AverageJoe wrote: »

but instead I gave my substantiated opinion based on the evidence I observed, small though it was.

Again, you're absolutely right. The evidence you observed was small. Far too small to substantiate your claim. Imagine trying to prove your claim in court where the burden of proof is only preponderance of the evidence. At best, your piece of evidence is circumstantial.

AverageJoe wrote: »

See, if I walk outside and see a puddle but it's not raining, my substantiated opinion may be that it looks like it recently rained. I may be incorrect, but there is evidence (the puddle) to support my opinion that it looks like it rained. It's just not conclusive evidence. There might even be countering evidence, like a nearby fire hydrant spouting water. In this case, I may well be wrong about how the interview went, but I based my conclusion on the fact that I saw a puddle and there was no leaking fire hydrant nearby...

The concept that is missing in your analogy is degree. It's more like you walked outside, saw a puddle, then concluded that the puddle must of been the result of the torrential downpour of a violent thunderstorm. That's possible, but it also could have been a very light rain or something in between.

AverageJoe wrote: »

So... you're saying that if I'm right then my comments are probably helpful, but if I'm wrong then not so much. Yep, that we absolutely agree on!

You seem to be genuinely surprised by this. I'm not sure why. This is in the spirit of what I've been saying the entire time.

AverageJoe wrote: »

By the way, what helpful comments did you provide the OP?

ITHokie wrote: »

OP is right, the term "expert" is used far too loosely in general, including in job descriptions.

Empathy, validation.

ITHokie

OctalDump wrote: »

One of the articles talks about why people are attracted to 'stupid people' as leaders, which he says is because stupid people tend to be overconfident, and confidence is attractive in a leader (even when they are wrong).

I've read similar analysis of how people respond not only to CEOs and top level execs but mid-level management as well. Crazy.

AverageJoe

ITHokie wrote: »

You seem to be genuinely surprised by this. I'm not sure why. This is in the spirit of what I've been saying the entire time.

Perhaps it is, but it's not the way I understood you. Perhaps I'm not the only one who could have worded his post better.