InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comThu, 23 May 2013 05:50:14 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]James Stover (4/21/2011)[/b][hr]Sometimes in large organizations - particularly government - you will see jobs advertised with very specific skills and experience. I've never been able to prove this, but I am almost certain these jobs are written for either 1) the person already in the job who has to re-apply for whatever reason or 2) the person who already works, wants the job and is required to apply the job along with everyone else. Basically, the manager writes the job spec so that nobody else other than the person they want in the job is qualified. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that I'm certain it happens.[/quote]in government yesby law all government jobs have to be advertised for some amount of time. so if someone likes you and wants to promote you into a better job they have to advertise the job first to give other people a chance. to get around it they write the skill set to what you can do so that they have eliminate othersMon, 09 May 2011 07:43:16 GMTalen teplitskyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]Craig Farrell (4/22/2011)[/b][hr][quote][b]James Stover (4/21/2011)[/b][hr]Sometimes in large organizations - particularly government - you will see jobs advertised with very specific skills and experience. I've never been able to prove this, but I am almost certain these jobs are written for either 1) the person already in the job who has to re-apply for whatever reason or 2) the person who already works, wants the job and is required to apply the job along with everyone else. Basically, the manager writes the job spec so that nobody else other than the person they want in the job is qualified. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that I'm certain it happens.[/quote]A perfect example of what I've nicknamed a "Job for Bob" scenario. I personally usually see these in Visa Renewal situations, but the government doing it too doesn't surprise me.[/quote]"Job for Bob". I like it!Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:20:00 GMTJames Stoverhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]James Stover (4/21/2011)[/b][hr]Sometimes in large organizations - particularly government - you will see jobs advertised with very specific skills and experience. I've never been able to prove this, but I am almost certain these jobs are written for either 1) the person already in the job who has to re-apply for whatever reason or 2) the person who already works, wants the job and is required to apply the job along with everyone else. Basically, the manager writes the job spec so that nobody else other than the person they want in the job is qualified. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that I'm certain it happens.[/quote]A perfect example of what I've nicknamed a "Job for Bob" scenario. I personally usually see these in Visa Renewal situations, but the government doing it too doesn't surprise me.Fri, 22 Apr 2011 11:57:09 GMTEvil Kraig Fhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspxYep, seen that in CA State positions often.Thu, 21 Apr 2011 22:13:47 GMTBrandon Foresthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspxSometimes in large organizations - particularly government - you will see jobs advertised with very specific skills and experience. I've never been able to prove this, but I am almost certain these jobs are written for either 1) the person already in the job who has to re-apply for whatever reason or 2) the person who already works, wants the job and is required to apply the job along with everyone else. Basically, the manager writes the job spec so that nobody else other than the person they want in the job is qualified. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that I'm certain it happens.Thu, 21 Apr 2011 19:04:59 GMTJames Stoverhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]Ninja's_RGR'us (4/21/2011)[/b][hr][quote][b]tfifield (4/21/2011)[/b][hr]Great article Craig! I've been put off by job postings that have the SQL God requirement in the past. I'll never look at job postings in the same light again.How about the jobs that list a bunch of SQL Server skills and then add .Net? What the heck to they mean by that?Todd Fifield[/quote]I had one just like that this week. They clearly need a senior for the role and they know it. All admin stuff all the way, very clear and well presented, then at the end they add 3 years .net web dev :w00t:.[b]ADMIN <> web DEV[/b][/quote]I hate those. "We need x, but we want the kitchen sink." I call them shotgun postings (among other, less savory names). You can tell they dang well need an *X* person. They still slam everything on the wall hoping to find someone it'll all stick to for 1/2 the price of the guy who ONLY does what they really needed in the first place. :rolleyes:Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:56:36 GMTEvil Kraig Fhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]tfifield (4/21/2011)[/b][hr]Great article Craig! I've been put off by job postings that have the SQL God requirement in the past. I'll never look at job postings in the same light again.How about the jobs that list a bunch of SQL Server skills and then add .Net? What the heck to they mean by that?Todd Fifield[/quote]One of two things usually. First is the good reasoning: They want someone who's at least done SOME programming so they can talk to the coders intelligently, even if they can't do their job. The other is they want an actual coder who can do all these SQL tasks as well, because they don't realize the workload or expertise is different.Sadly, the latter of those is the more common. It really only works in very tiny shops that don't have a lot of work in general, or they need the rare change to the interface/software but mostly they need the data maintained.Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:49:32 GMTEvil Kraig Fhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]tfifield (4/21/2011)[/b][hr]Great article Craig! I've been put off by job postings that have the SQL God requirement in the past. I'll never look at job postings in the same light again.How about the jobs that list a bunch of SQL Server skills and then add .Net? What the heck to they mean by that?Todd Fifield[/quote]I had one just like that this week. They clearly need a senior for the role and they know it. All admin stuff all the way, very clear and well presented, then at the end they add 3 years .net web dev :w00t:.[b]ADMIN <> web DEV[/b]Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:14:02 GMTNinja's_RGR'ushttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspxGreat article Craig! I've been put off by job postings that have the SQL God requirement in the past. I'll never look at job postings in the same light again.How about the jobs that list a bunch of SQL Server skills and then add .Net? What the heck to they mean by that?Todd FifieldThu, 21 Apr 2011 11:06:45 GMTtfifieldhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]Fal (4/18/2011)[/b][hr][quote][b]alen teplitsky (4/18/2011)[/b][hr] a lot of the listings are fake and are just head hunters looking for resumes for their database[/quote]Ah, now there's something I've also noticed: the same job description popping up week after week, month after month. A position seemingly never to get filled. That's a red flag in it's own right.Steve.[/quote]Job boards like Dice and Monster have devolved into resume harvesting/aggregation services. So, I don't even bother with job boards anymore. I leverage my network - mainly via LinkedIn. Let [i]them[/i] find [i]you[/i]. Make them earn their keep.Mon, 18 Apr 2011 21:24:22 GMTJames Stoverhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]alen teplitsky (4/18/2011)[/b][hr] a lot of the listings are fake and are just head hunters looking for resumes for their database[/quote]Ah, now there's something I've also noticed: the same job description popping up week after week, month after month. A position seemingly never to get filled. That's a red flag in it's own right.Steve.Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:20:32 GMTFalhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspxThanks for the breakdown Craig.Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:13:47 GMTSQLRNNRhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]fname lname-1111520 (4/14/2011)[/b][hr][quote][b]Craig Farrell (4/14/2011)[/b][hr][quote][b]fname lname-1111520 (4/13/2011)[/b][hr]I get it: "then", "than", "there's", "there are". Stop reading (and I did), it can't be coherent.[/quote]Huh? Could you specifically quote where you found this incoherent for those reasons? I fear you've confused the heck out of me here.Edit: even stranger, that post was at 10:38 PM before the article released. wha?[/quote][quote]I'm sorry to say there isn't a big enough facepalm emoticon for the current state of job advertising in our industry. You're competing with employers looking for the most bang for their buck, HR firms/departments who know as much about tech as most techies know about oil rig equipment, local laws regarding job duty requirements, Visa (not the credit card) Renewal laws, and consulting/hiring firms who know more buzzwords then technology. They've had more practice at this then you probably have, and it can be difficult figuring out what's good and what's not.Let's review a concept I brought up in my previous article before we get started. For SQL Server, there's 5[/quote]"then" and "there's"... I didn't find it incoherent. I claimed "it can't be coherent". If I were reviewing resumes, you go in the Engrish pile.[/quote]Oh the irony of that last sentence!Sorry, but the professional editor in me just can't help but point out that, "If I were reviewing resumes, you go in the Engrish pile." is grammatically incorrect. It should be "you'd" or "you would", at the very least. To be actually correct, it should be "yours would", since you presumably wouldn't actually be putting the person in that pile, but their résumé.Also, you mispunctuated the sentence before that.Very, very funny. I hope it was intentional. If not, change that to "very, very sad".Craig: Good article. Considering the horrible grammatical, etc., errors in the quoted job postings, a few typos on your part just seemed to add flavor to the whole thing. Claim it was on purpose, to highlite that, and you're golden.Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:39:34 GMTGSquaredhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]alen teplitsky (4/18/2011)[/b][hr]this isn't a new thing, when i first left the army and was looking for a job i saw that all the listings want everything in the IT world. I always ignore it and apply for everything that interests me.[/quote]It's certainly one approach, but I dislike shotgunning my resume everywhere, personally. I haven't found it to be anywhere as near as effective.[quote] a lot of the listings are fake and are just head hunters looking for resumes for their database. no one really reads resumes anymore. [/quote]I'm sorry but this is just inaccurate. No, they may not read the thousand of them that showed up. There is some major whittling going on if you end up with an unexpected volume of applicants to a position. Get down to the last fifty or sixty and I have found that most hiring managers tend to read the resume instead of just scan it at that point. Yes, you do need to get it past the gatekeepers though. Too many people apply for things they just can't do.Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:30:46 GMTEvil Kraig Fhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspxthis isn't a new thing, when i first left the army and was looking for a job i saw that all the listings want everything in the IT world. I always ignore it and apply for everything that interests me. a lot of the listings are fake and are just head hunters looking for resumes for their database. no one really reads resumes anymore. they scan them in and search for keywords for possible candidates. after HR/recruiter does the initial phone interview they forward it to the person who will do the real interview along with any opinionsMon, 18 Apr 2011 08:11:41 GMTalen teplitskyhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]LutzM (4/15/2011)[/b][hr]Question aside: where did you learn German? I'm impressed![/quote]I didn't think that was impressive, it is after all something very short and simple, no complexity or long words or difficult concepts. Mostly I learnt German in high school (2 hours a week of lessons for 3 years, plus a lot of reading). But also I learnt it in Germany and in Austria on accassional visits. I had a couple of walking holidays in the Rhineland (around Koblenz, Bingen, Rüdesheim) when I was a teenager, had holidays in Vienna and in Steuraland in my early 20s, spent a week in München now and again (on work) in my 40s and early 50s and a day or two in Frankfurt, and was always interested in Classical music so heard much singing of German (music by Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Wagner, Weil) as well as picking up a lot of other German songs on my travels. Also found German was a useful language for communication in Jugoslavia (because I spoke no SerbCroat, and people where I was spoke no English or French) where I spent a few weeks once a long time ago (I think it was in 1968). As German was my fifth language (as well as Gaelic and English, I already had a fair amount of French and had been learning Latin for a year when I started on German) I didn't have the problem of expecting it to work like my first language. Unfortunately I never became fluent, and still need a dictionary to read a novel in German (and needed one for a couple of the words in your comment).Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:37:20 GMTL' Eomot Inverséhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]Tom.Thomson (4/15/2011)[/b][hr][quote][b]LutzM (4/14/2011)[/b][hr]Nachdem ich den Artikel und die Kommentare bzgl. der Grammatikfehler gelesen habe, habe ich mich entschieden, ab sofort nur noch in einer Sprache zu schreiben, bei der meine grammatikalische Fehlerquote mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit deutlich geringer ist als bei der Verwendung der englischen Sprache.[/quote]Das wäre mir unsinn. Niemand, der SSC liest, würde mich verstehen, wenn ich meine eigene Sprache schrieb. :hehe:[/quote]That's only partially true. People speaking your language (either as first or second language) would be able to read (and hopefully understand) what you wrote. As per "fname lname-1111520"s understanding it should not be your goal to try to reach as many people as possible with your valuable comments but to make sure your grammar is perfect.I guess this person would consider the fact that you'd reach only a few percent of the SSC community as "collateral damage". :-P;-)Question aside: where did you learn German? I'm impressed!Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:28:38 GMTLutzMhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]Craig Farrell (4/14/2011)[/b][hr][quote][b]mohammed moinudheen (4/14/2011)[/b][hr]Craig, thank you very much for the article. This would be very helpful for most of us. I have seen many job postings which requires people knowledgebale in other database products as well like Oracle, Sybase etc. [/quote]These are usually two fold. In some cases, they're looking for someone who can help out the other DBAs with junior/mid type work. Somewhat common in a dual engine shop so you don't end up with different 'sides of the house'. The other times is when they already have split it into 'sides of the house' and they're looking for people with enough familiarity to connect to it with SSIS or other ETL methods. You'll usually have to read between the lines to know which of these they're looking for.[quote]Would it be preferable for SQL Server professionals who are working as Administrators to start learning about adminstrating other database products (Oracle, DB2 etc) or should we start learning T-SQL development, SSRS etc.[/quote]My personal goal is not to know the entire mountain range but to be able to climb one peak well, so in that, I'm almost pure SQL Server. This is a risk I take, because if SQL Server ever loses popularity I'm in trouble. Knowing other products isn't as important usually as knowing good T-SQL and administrative tasks, such as SSRS security and setup. Once you're past those administrative needs to be able to support a very wide developer userbase, then I'd look into possibly learning another RDBMS. I'd personally recommend MySQL if you're going to tackle a second one randomly. Anything free sells until they realize they're in over there heads. There's almost always jobs for MySQL contracting to clean up what someone else didn't do well, but realize there's not a ton of money in MySQL. If they were willing to spend a lot of money on that database, they probably wouldn't have selected a 'free' product.[/quote]Thank you Craig for very useful comments.Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:11:18 GMTmohammed moinudheenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]Riskworks (4/15/2011)[/b][hr][quote][b]Riskworks (4/14/2011)[/b][hr]Additionally, more and more I see references to the front-end languages used in the development shop. Experience with Cold Fusion desired..... Knowledge of Java perferred..... space capsule design exper.... I'm exagerating now but you get the point.John[/quote]To follow up on this, when asked what experience I had in ColdFusion, despite nothing on my res, I said that I had none. Later in the interview when asked what my weaknesses were I said my lack of experience in ColdFusion. Hey it's their game.[/quote]Even within a single technology you find people asking for things they don't need and not asking for things they do. I can't count the number of times I've seen SSIS, SSAS and SSRS on a job req and when it comes time for the interview they aren't really sure what SSAS is and they don't use SSRS. Alternately you'll see a lot of reqs that don't mention that they use CLRs or C#, but they still think it is absolutely required.Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:02:14 GMTStefan Krzywickihttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]Riskworks (4/14/2011)[/b][hr]Additionally, more and more I see references to the front-end languages used in the development shop. Experience with Cold Fusion desired..... Knowledge of Java perferred..... space capsule design exper.... I'm exagerating now but you get the point.John[/quote]To follow up on this, when asked what experience I had in ColdFusion, despite nothing on my res, I said that I had none. Later in the interview when asked what my weaknesses were I said my lack of experience in ColdFusion. Hey it's their game.Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:39:54 GMTRiskworkshttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]LutzM (4/14/2011)[/b][hr]Nachdem ich den Artikel und die Kommentare bzgl. der Grammatikfehler gelesen habe, habe ich mich entschieden, ab sofort nur noch in einer Sprache zu schreiben, bei der meine grammatikalische Fehlerquote mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit deutlich geringer ist als bei der Verwendung der englischen Sprache.[/quote]Das wäre mir unsinn. Niemand, der SSC liest, würde mich verstehen, wenn ich meine eigene Sprache schrieb. :hehe:Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:51:43 GMTL' Eomot Inverséhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]Fal (4/15/2011)[/b][hr]Thanks for the article - it's always good to get opinions like this.Sadly, you left out the old Bait n Switch. This happened to me a few years ago when I attended an interview for a SQL Dev with some DBA chores. After fielding too many questions about Oracle with not a SQL Server question to be seen I actually thought I was in the wrong interview.When I raised this the interviewer replied: "We find it hard to get decent Oracle people. It's better for us to get in good SQL Server people and cross train them."The agent was appalled when I complained, and we both laughed when I didn't get the job because I "didn't have enough Oracle experience."[/quote]I've had the recruiting agent do that to me. He added a few more keywords to my CV (project management, business analysis) and sent it on to a company. Fortunately I questioned the job description he sent me, didn't find out in the interview.I told him that if he was going to play stupid tricks like that he could play them on other people, and that he must never call me again.Fri, 15 Apr 2011 02:41:01 GMTGilaMonsterhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]Fal (4/15/2011)[/b][hr]Thanks for the article - it's always good to get opinions like this.Sadly, you left out the old Bait n Switch. This happened to me a few years ago when I attended an interview for a SQL Dev with some DBA chores. After fielding too many questions about Oracle with not a SQL Server question to be seen I actually thought I was in the wrong interview.When I raised this the interviewer replied: "We find it hard to get decent Oracle people. It's better for us to get in good SQL Server people and cross train them."The agent was appalled when I complained, and we both laughed when I didn't get the job because I "didn't have enough Oracle experience."[/quote]Hey Steve.Unfortunately, you can't detect a bait and switch from the posting. There's any number of silly thing recruiters will do that are practically undetectable from the public description. These are things you just can't help sometimes, but luckily what you ran into tends to be rare, at least from my experience. They happen, but... well... you just roll with some of the punches.Thanks for the appreciation, however. :)Fri, 15 Apr 2011 02:10:52 GMTEvil Kraig Fhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspxThanks for the article - it's always good to get opinions like this.Sadly, you left out the old Bait n Switch. This happened to me a few years ago when I attended an interview for a SQL Dev with some DBA chores. After fielding too many questions about Oracle with not a SQL Server question to be seen I actually thought I was in the wrong interview.When I raised this the interviewer replied: "We find it hard to get decent Oracle people. It's better for us to get in good SQL Server people and cross train them."The agent was appalled when I complained, and we both laughed when I didn't get the job because I "didn't have enough Oracle experience."Steve.Fri, 15 Apr 2011 01:55:24 GMTFalhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspxLutz, thanks for the laughs!Craig, very interesting article. I really appreciated the way you "translated" the job requirements. I have frequently seen the type of jobs where the poster asks for everything including the kitchen sink. Due to these type of job ads, I was taught that if you can satisfy between 70% and 80% of the job requirements you have a reasonable chance at getting an interview.Cheers!Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:51:36 GMTNicole Bowmanhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]Craig Farrell (4/14/2011)[/b][hr][quote][b]LutzM (4/14/2011)[/b][hr]Nachdem ich den Artikel und die Kommentare bzgl. der Grammatikfehler gelesen habe, habe ich mich entschieden, ab sofort nur noch in einer Sprache zu schreiben, bei der meine grammatikalische Fehlerquote mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit deutlich geringer ist als bei der Verwendung der englischen Sprache.Hierbei kann es zwar vorkommen, daß der Inhalt meiner zukünftigen Antworten von einigen anderen Lesern auf Grund der Sprachbarriere nicht verstanden wird. Aber das Wichtigste ist ja offensichtlich die korrekte Grammatik.Danke, fname lname-1111520. :-D:-D:-DPS: Translation available upon request. :-P[/quote]Bwaaa haa haa... Thanks Lutz. Btw, Google Translate chewed that to pieces, but I got the drift. :-)[/quote]Let's see if I can do it better than Google:After reading the article (including the grammar related comments) I decided from now on only to use a language where my grammar error rate with the utmost probability will be significantly lower than if I would continue to post in English.It may occur that the content of my future replies will not be understandable to some readers due to a language barrier. But, obviously, a correct grammar is most important.Thank you, fname lname-1111520.Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:47:43 GMTLutzMhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]LutzM (4/14/2011)[/b][hr]Nachdem ich den Artikel und die Kommentare bzgl. der Grammatikfehler gelesen habe, habe ich mich entschieden, ab sofort nur noch in einer Sprache zu schreiben, bei der meine grammatikalische Fehlerquote mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit deutlich geringer ist als bei der Verwendung der englischen Sprache.Hierbei kann es zwar vorkommen, daß der Inhalt meiner zukünftigen Antworten von einigen anderen Lesern auf Grund der Sprachbarriere nicht verstanden wird. Aber das Wichtigste ist ja offensichtlich die korrekte Grammatik.Danke, fname lname-1111520. :-D:-D:-DPS: Translation available upon request. :-P[/quote]Bwaaa haa haa... Thanks Lutz. Btw, Google Translate chewed that to pieces, but I got the drift. :-)Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:39:48 GMTEvil Kraig Fhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]ALZDBA (4/14/2011)[/b][hr]Andy also commented wonderful on his blog:[url]http://sqlblog.com/blogs/andy_leonard/archive/2011/04/14/recruiting-sql-server-database-professionals.aspx[/url]Another confirmation of your article being very valid ![/quote]Wow. :blush:Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:10:28 GMTEvil Kraig Fhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]Adam Machanic (4/14/2011)[/b][hr]Interesting read. I do have to question the idea that the 3-6 month BI project is a junior role and a good way for someone to "get their feet wet." It seems to me that such a short gig, especially in a business-centric area like BI, is about the most senior-level thing you can do. [/quote]I had read it that way myself, at first. It was after the fact, when I re-read it, that I felt it really was more for someone in the low end of the pool. Primarily because of how the intro read to me. It really feels to me they wanted someone who would grow with them into this, not come in and dominate it. Of course, I could be all wet.[quote]In order to properly tackle that engagement you need to be able to hit the ground running from day one, have the ability to ask the right questions of the business, understand how to convert the answers into a reasonable data model, and then be able to quickly execute the design using the complex (and seriously buggy :-P) Microsoft BI stack. I think if someone with little real-world experience took a gig like that, things would end very quickly and very badly. [/quote]This is a personal difference in the perceptions of the people who usually get involved at a junior/low mid BI role. They have an interest in the data and the manipulations to have wanted to chase that aspect of the career in the first place. Now, do they have the experience? Probably not. I usually assume most Junior BI folks can implement a [i]simple[/i] cube quickly and get reports up. We've read different assumptions into this role. I see a company just starting out getting into business analytics and will need some time to experiment at the basic level. If they need someone with the level of experience you're describing, the 3+ years experience I don't feel is enough. Yes, I agree that SSAS is relatively new, but analytics isn't, merely that technique.[quote]Of course the expectations are also a bit odd; most significant BI projects take much longer than 3-6 months.[/quote]That in particular was what led me to believe this was a place that had nothing in play yet. They're not sure of what they want, and someone who can setup simple methods and cubes with a solid book learning of that should suffice at first.Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:01:05 GMTEvil Kraig Fhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspxI received a job req not long ago that had 2 lines toward the end that set off all kinds of alarms for me. It was in a section marked "Intangibles"[quote]Ability to fit into a laid back” environment, can’t be too high strung or dramatic and not interested in people who “make mountains out of molehills”. Ability to operate in an environment that may be lacking in formal documentation and procedures.[/quote]The first line says they aren't interested in the best or consistant ways of doing things. Best practices? Regular backups? Normalized tables? Wanting any or all of these might be "making mountains out of molehills".The second line, to me says "we have no documentation or standards" and that whomever takes the job will have to figure things out on their own.The first line taken witih the second says "and we like it that way".Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:59:50 GMTStefan Krzywickihttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]jremmc (4/14/2011)[/b][hr]Great article! (Unfortunately when I tried to rate the article I only got one star highlighted and then the system grabbed it, which is why I usually bypass ratings but I thought I'd try, so that one star should really be 5 stars.)[/quote]So it was YOU!!!! I have your IP! I will find you! Then I will... um... hm. I'm not sure. Gail, can you airmail me the katana? :-DNo worries, JR, and thanks for the comment. When I was watching at first there were a few folks who apparently did so (I was watching stars pop up and down at first, I think it's a volume of reads thing), but it doesn't appear to have caused any harm.Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:53:48 GMTEvil Kraig Fhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]Stefan Krzywicki (4/14/2011)[/b][hr]Sometimes companies just want to test the waters and see what's out there and they don't care that they're wasting your time.[/quote]Unfortunately, there's almost no way to find these culprits until the end of the process. They're doing marketing research themselves at that point, and while it can be frustrating, it's part of the process for both sides.Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:48:54 GMTEvil Kraig Fhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]Alberto-419816 (4/14/2011)[/b][hr]I wished I had read this years ago. I have a long list of jobs that were inaccurate in their descriptions at best and down right deceiveful at worst. Employers have the upper hand when it comes to hiring practices. There should be law against it.[/quote]Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you will get, to quote Forrest Gump. Just last Monday I started on a new assignment as a QA lead. On Tuesday I got the performance team. Not that I would complain, but it tells you that even during the interviews the client was still not sure about what I could and should do.Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:35:06 GMTRevenanthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspxI wished I had read this years ago. I have a long list of jobs that were inaccurate in their descriptions at best and down right deceiveful at worst. Employers have the upper hand when it comes to hiring practices. There should be law against it.Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:00:52 GMTAlberto-419816http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]bob.depinet (4/14/2011)[/b][hr]Thanks for this informative article. Is it possible you could give some salary expectations for various levels of experience and various areas of the US (midwest corn country?)? An article on that would be great, as would more in-depth examination of what to look for as reasonable expectations (for both sides) in the job search.[/quote]Regarding the more in-depth examination, I have more material to present, but we'll have to see the response to this to see if SSC is interested in more on this topic. If not, I've been building a backlog for a blog I intend to start and will present it there.Regarding salary expectations... I won't touch that. It's too specific to region, personalities, and time. It would be out of date in a year and a half and would require far too much research to do as an article. I'm also relatively regionally specific in my knowledge on that topic. I could only help in the desert-areas of the Southwest and the Northeast urban areas (Boston and Manhattan Boroughs specifically).Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:58:37 GMTEvil Kraig Fhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]badMojo (4/14/2011)[/b][hr]"what is a SQL Server Engineer" someone who doesn't take care of hardware. :-DThat's what I call myself and I've been doing it for just about 20 years. I hate being called a DBA.[/quote]Well, always good to learn something. Thanks for the comment, Mojo.Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:54:48 GMTEvil Kraig Fhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspxAndy also commented wonderful on his blog:[url]http://sqlblog.com/blogs/andy_leonard/archive/2011/04/14/recruiting-sql-server-database-professionals.aspx[/url]Another confirmation of your article being very valid !Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:54:25 GMTALZDBAhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]Grant Fritchey (4/14/2011)[/b][hr]Nice article Craig. The company I left put up a SQL Superman job to try to replace me, despite my protests. My old boss just kept saying "Let's see what we get." So I don't think anyone actually expects to really fill these requirements. Unfortunately, then the HR guys get involved, go through and pluck out all the keywords and then play keyword bingo with resumes. The only ones that qualify are from people lying their behinds off who then fail the technical interview which is why you have to go through 60-70 phone interviews and 5-10 face to face interviews to actually hire someone. It's frankly getting stupid. This article really helps.[/quote]I've seen this a number of times, and I agree with you. There are plenty of times the laundry list gets shoved into a job requirements portion (rather then ending up in the 'nice to have' section), which presents the job completely differently.When they end up doing this, I'm stuck agreeing with you. You get the desperate or the ignorant. I don't think the job hunters are quite as malicious as you think, but after seeing so many job postings they can't even get past HR on they overemphasize everything to make sure the gatekeepers aren't the problem, especially newer people who don't realize that having setup a reporting server at home is nothing like a commercially available one that's corporate wide.The other side is you end up with desperate high end people, and there's enough of them in the market lately that they think they can get away with this. It's business, and it's cut-throat. I just don't think it gets the business quite what they were expecting when they use this method. They want the best they can get for the price, but instead they're getting the best presentation they could get for the price out of the applicants. Your truly best would usually skip a problem posting like that.Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:52:53 GMTEvil Kraig Fhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspxI appreciate the thought put into this article. I've been consulting for 18 years, and been a mainstream SQL Server "Engineer" for the past 8 years. I think that there are four areas of expertise for any data professional:1) Data Architect - This person is responsible for analyzing existing data structures, the requirements provided by the business, and the available resources. Then designing a solution (DFDs, ERDs, Data Dictionary, etc.) that the Database Developer will code. 2) Database Developer - This person takes the design of the Data Architect (DFDs, ERDs, Data Dictionary, etc.) and codes the actual DDL for the tables, views, procedures, constraints, triggers, ETLs, etc.3) Database Administrator - This person is responsible for implementing and administering the solution the was designed by the Data Architect and engineered by Database Developer. Their primary responsibility it to ensure that the data integrity is maintained and keeps flowing. They need a critical eye to evaluate what has been handed to them to implement. Ideally, they will be consulted by the Data Architect and Database Developer during the development process, so that nothing is coming at them from out in left field.4) Business Intelligence Developer - This person takes the existing data and designs outputs that are used by end users. This includes, reports, cubes, ad-hoc query solutions, etc.A well rounded professional who has been in the business for some time will have worked to some extent in all of these areas. Most professionals will have an area of expertise that they are stronger in than the others. Being a SQL GOD is impossible for even the Guru level SQL Server professional, but being competent in all of these areas is desirable, and being an expert in at least one of these areas will keep you employed.Cheers! :-DThu, 14 Apr 2011 12:33:02 GMTBrandon Foresthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1093284-2864-1.aspx[quote][b]Revenant (4/14/2011)[/b][hr][quote][b]Stefan Krzywicki (4/14/2011)[/b][hr]. . .I've found that almost all contracts are advertised as 3-6 month regardless of how long they're actually expected to take.. . .[/quote]Most companies are allowed to make contracts go only until the end of the fiscal year. However, there may be a clause that the contract is renewable under the stated conditions. (Which means that they will keep as long as they wish but the rate likely will not go up, unless you speak up and they really need you.)[/quote]Yep, usually that 3-6 month period on longer jobs is partly an artifact of contracts, that's how long contracts are for so they just use renewable ones. It also gives the company flexibility. And with a 3-6 month contract, they can get an idea if you're a good fit for the job.And you're right, the rate won't go up unless you speak up, or at least yours won't. Some less than scrupulous agencies will start billing more without giving you a raise. On the other hand, if they do need you for longer periods, you can usually negotiate reasonable raises when your contract is up for renewal. I wouldn't suggest asking for that raise more than once a year unless your responsibilities drastically increase.Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:32:19 GMTStefan Krzywicki