TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: (Non)Degreed and insulted!! From:Ray Bruman x2325 <rbruman -at- TURING -dot- RAYNET -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 2 Jun 1994 12:49:29 PDT
> Arlen asks:
> >How much of that is due to the documents being fakes, do you think? And how
> >much might be because they were either caught flat-footed (like you were in
> >your interview) or because it might have been a decision that was made for
> >them, and they never thought (or dared) to ask why?
> I suspect that mostly people were caught a little flat-footed.
> I also suspect that, at least among the newbie writers, decisions
> were made for them that they didn't realize they could question.
Some interviewers like to use "stress questions" to weed out applicants.
Hence, the whole _purpose_ of the question may have been simply to
"catch the applicant flat-footed" regardless of whether fraud is
suspected. If I were the applicant, I'd be tempted to end the
interview right there, barring other overriding considerations.
This is not to deny that resume fraud is a serious problem.
> I've only encountered a single instance where someone deliberately
> falsified a portfolio, and it was very easy to determine.
Right. A qualified interviewer should spot it quickly.
The
> point I was trying to make, and may have failed to, is that only
> by probing can you find out the level of involvement a candidate
> has had with document development.
Right. And "probing" can be respectful, fun for both parties, and
much more revealing than examining a resume, references, or portfolio.
And even if someone wasn't
> intimately involved with, say, layout and design, that person
> may have valuable insight into what was good and what was bad
> about the design.
Exactly. Most of us are _prevented_ from using our expertise, for a
host of reasons, good and bad. There's more than a touch of irony
in my signature (below) that you senior tech writers will recognize.
> anne halsey
> sr tech writer, storagetek
> anne_halsey -at- stortek -dot- com
Ray Bruman Cogito, ergo remunerantur.
Raynet Corp.
rbruman -at- raynet -dot- com I think, therefore I am paid.
415-688-2325
