| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont think you should apply if you dont want to, but I dont think "I probably wont get it" should ever factor into anyone's decision to apply for a job they can do and that they want*.
Let's face it, nobody will be considered if they dont apply - everyone will be considered (to some degree) if they do.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm middle aged and sickly and have life issues. So, that is my reasoning for not applying.
Give it a try. What do you have to lose? A little bit of time? A stamp and an envelope? Even if the chance is minuscule, isn't a shot at a dream job worth that much at least?
We all have life issues . . . such comes from living life!
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Give it a try. What do you have to lose? A little bit of time? A stamp and an envelope? Even if the chance is minuscule, isn't a shot at a dream job worth that much at least?
"A stamp and an envelope?" Save your $0.49—I don't think I've seen a resume arrive by mail in 20 years!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, if you send it by telegram, that might get some attention. ;-)
Animal messenger...
Pony express.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well that escalated quickly.
My belief that I will not be considered is not a lack of belief in myself or my abilities. I do want to be clear on that. I am totally qualified for the open position, and I would do well in it. I have total confidence in that regard. Based on past application experience with Paizo, I do not believe I would be considered. My reputation has suffered tremendously over the past few years from bouts of illness and severe depression, and I know they are aware of it--that on top of my being very opinionated--and it has likely kept me from receiving interviews or tests. I can't blame them for not wanting a person with my issues. That is why I was saying another woman might better suit them than myself. I'm middle aged and sickly and have life issues. So, that is my reasoning for not applying.
If your illnesses could prevent you from making deadlines that might be an issue, but being outspoken/opinionated is not a bad thing. They do work with you now, which I doubt they would do if you were a "problem child". SKR used to openly say "I disagreed with Jason about ruling X(how trips works with weapons is one example".
With that said if you apply the worst they can do is say "no".
Thanks for the encouragement, everyone, but my post was honestly not about me. Additionally, I've already committed to teaching college composition again this spring (the second best thing to creating game products is warping--uh, molding--young writers), so I'm not available for anything beyond freelancing through May.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't feel like somebody should EVER be hired simply based on the fact they are a minority - that in itself is inequality. As a gay male, I have it pretty loud and proud on my resume that I identify as such and have totally gotten hired based on *just that fact*... Which is totally wrong.
I respect a LOT of the comments that Paizo has made above, talking about including as many people as possible at the lowest levels (playing, GMing) to help inspire a passion that will potentially one day lead them to applying for a job.
If your middle-class straight cis (hate this word) white male applies for a job and is the best person qualified... Likely he is going to get the job.
Paizo is doing right by me, by creating equal opportunity for everybody and anybody to advance in the industry.
dunebugg I think we've already been over this but in general minorities applying for the position will be the most qualified, because systemic discrimination against them is way more common than discrimination in their favor. That being said I also object to affirmative action as all it really does is reinforce wealth disparity, that's a discussion for another thread.
To me "qualified" means, among other things, some experience. If someone has been systemically discriminated against, how can they be the most qualified, when that discrimination means their experience is at best limited, and quite possibly non-existant?
Personally, if it's not relevant to the job, it shouldn't be on the résumé. Nor should it be brought up in interviews.
As a gay male, I have it pretty loud and proud on my resume that I identify as such and have totally gotten hired based on *just that fact*... Which is totally wrong.
You are pretty lucky. Maybe it's just the areas I live in, but I've known people to specifically not get hired, or even worse, get fired, for that type of stuff.
Self Identifying in that way, is actually more harmful in the job market where I'm at than helpful...and even worse, unless you can actually PROVE it by having something in hand they signed or otherwise, there's no way to actually show that's what caused it.
However, normally it's pretty obvious (the ones being fired even moreso, as the firing or lay off seems to happen coincidentally right after they come out of the closet at work...so to speak).
So...WOW...I'd call you VERY lucky if that was actually the case. Haven't really seen that happen so far where I'm at, in fact, doing so could be the first mark to having a VERY hard time finding employment.
Glad someone out there is doing equality of employment apparently.
BUT I'd say you were the exception rather than the norm.
[PS: Not meaning to derail the thread, but the comment I replied to was so out of the ordinary of what I've seen, I wanted to point out this is definitely not how it's happening where I've been at in the US].
To me "qualified" means, among other things, some experience. If someone has been systemically discriminated against, how can they be the most qualified, when that discrimination means their experience is at best limited, and quite possibly non-existant?
Personally, if it's not relevant to the job, it shouldn't be on the résumé. Nor should it be brought up in interviews.
I meant for purely technical fields where blind testing is possible. IF you're factoring in experience then yes without some form of affirmative action minorities basically never get hired due to discrimination and lack of experience. This is a very bad thing and the exact thing that needs to be avoided. Hence why one would want to give preferential treatment to minorities. Otherwise the system perpetuates and we continue having inequality.
To me "qualified" means, among other things, some experience. If someone has been systemically discriminated against, how can they be the most qualified, when that discrimination means their experience is at best limited, and quite possibly non-existant?
Personally, if it's not relevant to the job, it shouldn't be on the résumé. Nor should it be brought up in interviews.
Jobs can require qualifications without including industry experience as a qualification. They're known as "entry-level positions."
(Your post, incidentally, seems to suggest that the Catch-22 keeping people who have been the targets of systematic discrimination out of certain fields is okay, or even desirable, which I assume was not your intent.)
I don't feel like somebody should EVER be hired simply based on the fact they are a minority - that in itself is inequality. As a gay male, I have it pretty loud and proud on my resume that I identify as such and have totally gotten hired based on *just that fact*... Which is totally wrong.
I respect a LOT of the comments that Paizo has made above, talking about including as many people as possible at the lowest levels (playing, GMing) to help inspire a passion that will potentially one day lead them to applying for a job.
If your middle-class straight cis (hate this word) white male applies for a job and is the best person qualified... Likely he is going to get the job.
Paizo is doing right by me, by creating equal opportunity for everybody and anybody to advance in the industry.
I hate that word too!
You know in a cretive field diversity is a good thing. Now there have been complaints in the past that Paizo tends to be progressive, so lets go out of the way to add some diversity of thought to the company. My suggestion is that the next hire should be a member of the Tea party.
After all Diversity of thought is just as important as any other diversity, perhaps more so if we want to avoid an echo chamber effect.
If libertarian counts as anything more than "even richer white guy who cares less about the poor than normal" doesn't that mean we need like hardcore scientologists, socialists, and other groups of crazy ideologues. If we start doing that though they'd have to come after actual minorities if only because of how small of a segment of the population they make up. Bitcoiner libertarians are rarer in America than say black people are.
PS. This post isn't intended to imply anyone at Paizo is dumb enough to fall for bitcoin, it is merely an example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In this scenario, can I apply for the position as Reformist Socialist Atheistic Scandinavian/Golarion continuity checker when Mark and the James's are out of the building?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any reason you are assuming no one currently at Paizo is a member of the Tea Party? :DI thought all of you folks were having coffee intravenously administered on a continual basis.
Tea is the only caffeinated beverage I drink.
But the discussions at my tea parties, while accompanied by delicious pastries and elegant china, are decidedly not Tea Party-approved.
|
dunebugg I think we've already been over this but in general minorities applying for the position will be the most qualified, because systemic discrimination against them is way more common than discrimination in their favor.
Wanna explain that logic again? At least to me, it doesn't even remotely track.
Wanna explain that logic again? At least to me, it doesn't even remotely track.
The following presumptions are made: all applicants have the same number of years of experience and the field requires technical skill. Due to systemic discrimination a minority member has to work harder to acquire a job than a non-minority. Thus to get those same number of years of experience a minority applicant must be more skilled or have a better work ethic. The presumption of equal years of experience is fairly easy to make as most job openings have a specified experience requirement. However this still applies for entry level jobs that require some manner of secondary education due to system discrimination being present in America's education system to an equal or greater degree than most professional environments.
I should probably note that I don't think this is a good thing. I'm not trying to say that the discrimination is producing better minority workers. It isn't. It simply removes all of the ones that would just be "good enough" if they were non-minority.
I wish I had fallen for bitcoin back when it first came out, and then sold it away a few years ago when it peaked.
Sadly during the peak no one could cash out due to MtGox controlling most of the actual cash out options. To pump and dump you would have had to cash out a few months before the peak.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your middle-class straight cis (hate this word) white maleI hate that word too!
I don't see why you should...it just means "not trans".
Without the word "cis", trans folks become the "other" in a way that denotes them as a deviant aberration and suggests that cis folks are the "default" or "normal"; both points being decidedly incorrect.
This isn't the thread to discuss gender studies, but I needed to point that out.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, if you send it by telegram, that might get some attention. ;-)
I've been practicing my calligraphy for the cover letter, but training the owl to deliver it has much more... difficult than I expected.
{reaches for first aid kit again} I again blame Cosmo that Stross did not include fast healing or regeneration in the slaad repertoire.