>I'd really like to see all these studies about what employers want. Sure, >working with others is important, but I think there's probably an assumption >that the-employee-to-be is competent. Without individual competence in basic >things like writing, reading, and mathematics, a master cooperative worker >isn't worth much. > >In my previous life as an auditor, I spent years traveling from city to city >doing payroll audits. I hired lots of people and it was most difficult simply >finding people who could follow instructions, show up on time, do basic >computations, and generally be a competent employee. Whether this person was >capable of being a master problem solver in a group was a pretty low >priority.
We look at the resume first. A candidate will not get an interview without the appropriate technical background. Then we have one to two days of interviews where we assess technical competency and ability to work individually and in a group. This is for engineering jobs.
> It's interesting that some would find time to heckle some of us who are not >native English speakers doing a fine job of communicating on this forum while >ignoring the remarkable prose of the Assessment Standards.
I read the standards a few years ago from copies at the library. Just a comment on standards in general: I've perused and used as reference the ANSI SQL 92 and SQL 3 standards and they are several times larger than the NCTM standards. The language is very dry, technical and monotonous. The NCTM standards were friendly by comparison.
As a result, there are books that describe the SQL standards in more down-to-earth terms. It would be nice if there were books to explain the standards so that more people would know what they are.
Michael Moy email@example.com
Comments here are my own and don't reflect thos of my employer.