Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab
-
@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
Them having a home lab has no basis to prove they will be good or bad at any job.
Never said it did - but it shows interest and self motivation, which are critical things in IT.
The fact they are after the job in IT shows that they have interest and self motivation. Otherwise they would be looking for a job in healthcare, or sports or whatever else.
THis is incorrect. That's not how looking for jobs works.
No, of course. People only look for jobs they have no interest in right Scott...
That's not good logic. You made the obviously false assumption that all people only apply to jobs about which they are passionate. You then respond with the utterly illogical conclusion that if that is untrue that all people must do the opposite.
Not all water is clear, therefore all water is murky?
If you are not passionate then it will be clear within the probation and you will be gone. Its not a good position to be in to assume from the get go that only those with a lab are passionate. Its not good to assume those with a lab are more learned than those without who have actual real work experience. Its not good to assume the home lab gave good quality knowledge etc.
A home lab is not relevant.
Think about this - If you have a job where you have to support KVM, that only tells a person that because of your job, you know something about KVM. BUT, if you have a KVM setup at home, you KNOW this person cared enough to learn about KVM on their own, and that it's likely they have passion about it. You can't know about passion from a person who does a job for pay.
The fact that they have a job needing KVM and have not been fired, thereby showing they can gain knowledge and get the job done, shows what I need to know. Having a home lab doesnt show me anything.
-
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
Its not good to assume those with a lab are more learned than those without who have actual real work experience. Its not good to assume the home lab gave good quality knowledge etc.
Agreed, never suggested otherwise. Same thing goes for work experience. Having work experience doesn't tell us that someone is more learned than someone with a home lab or that what they learned was quality (or even right.)
Yes it does. If its not quality work, or right, they would SHOULD have a history of being fired or are unemployed repeatedly, with no good references other than a statement of employment.
Look at SW posts, most of those people are employed. It's easy to disprove that theory. People I'd never let near a computer are the average in the industry. They hate their jobs, they know nothing about it, they shouldn't even be L1s, no one should keep them past probation and no one should have hired them in the first place. Yet they are employed with good work histories.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
As for it rarely paying off - I don't feel the way you described me, I do completely agree with you. People rarely have the clarity and motivation to do it, but those that do, clearly it almost always pays off for them.
Right, so if they know to do it, it pays off. If they don't do it because they don't know or they decide that they don't care, they pay for it later.
Of course, but the point is - you still paid. You just happened to learn that paying for it very very early in life was worth while. This was my only point, that you still DID pay for that learning time.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
Its not good to assume those with a lab are more learned than those without who have actual real work experience. Its not good to assume the home lab gave good quality knowledge etc.
Agreed, never suggested otherwise. Same thing goes for work experience. Having work experience doesn't tell us that someone is more learned than someone with a home lab or that what they learned was quality (or even right.)
Yes it does. If its not quality work, or right, they would SHOULD have a history of being fired or are unemployed repeatedly, with no good references other than a statement of employment.
Not in the real world. Companies rarely hire or fire based on those criteria. For one, because it is costly and difficult to do so. Second because if they have a track record of bad hiring, they likely know that replacing that person will be hard. Third, if they can't determine with any reliability before hiring if someone is good, they probably don't know what good or bad IT work looks like so have no idea that they are bad.
You are assuming some idyllic world where hiring is free, firing is simple, and gauging quality on the job is easy. None of these things are true in the real world.
In the UK this is one of the most frequent things that prevent somebody from being employed. If you have gaps on the CV, only records of employment rather than good reviews etc, that will stop the job offer. Not a lab.
-
@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
Them having a home lab has no basis to prove they will be good or bad at any job.
Never said it did - but it shows interest and self motivation, which are critical things in IT.
The fact they are after the job in IT shows that they have interest and self motivation. Otherwise they would be looking for a job in healthcare, or sports or whatever else.
THis is incorrect. That's not how looking for jobs works.
No, of course. People only look for jobs they have no interest in right Scott...
That's not good logic. You made the obviously false assumption that all people only apply to jobs about which they are passionate. You then respond with the utterly illogical conclusion that if that is untrue that all people must do the opposite.
Not all water is clear, therefore all water is murky?
If you are not passionate then it will be clear within the probation and you will be gone. Its not a good position to be in to assume from the get go that only those with a lab are passionate. Its not good to assume those with a lab are more learned than those without who have actual real work experience. Its not good to assume the home lab gave good quality knowledge etc.
A home lab is not relevant.
Think about this - If you have a job where you have to support KVM, that only tells a person that because of your job, you know something about KVM. BUT, if you have a KVM setup at home, you KNOW this person cared enough to learn about KVM on their own, and that it's likely they have passion about it. You can't know about passion from a person who does a job for pay.
Also think about this.... if a system was set up well before you were hired, say KVM was installed, you might easily be in a position to go five years without so much as a reboot and get lucky that nothing breaks and acquire five years of experience and pay, get rave reviews from your employer, and move on to another job with all of that experience - while never having even logged into the system or worked on it. Just hoping for the best and letting it run, or worse, calling in a consultant to do that work on your behalf and paying someone else to do your job for you.
This isn't an outlandish suggestion, it's super common. How many times do people just ignore risks and hope to get lucky and just assume that they will quit or be fired if the company gets screwed. It's a logical risk for an unethical IT person to take.
-
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
Them having a home lab has no basis to prove they will be good or bad at any job.
I'd say it is the largest indicator that we have in the industry. Nothing guarantees that someone will be good. But nothing is a better indicator. Home labs show passion and initiative. Nothing else really does.
Having the desire to get that foot in the door and that first IT job also shows passion and initiative.
eh? Not really. That's only showing a desire to get a paycheck.
Far easier jobs exist for a paycheck. The fact they chose IT shows a desire to get a paycheck in IT. We all desire a paycheck.
Far easier than level 1 tech? That's pretty basic. Learning to be efficient at flipping burgers isn't as easy as it sounds. Actually mopping floors and doing a good job does take real effort.
I was using level 1 as an example. Going from level 'x', to level 'z', over 'y' number of years working for 'a' employers with good references shows you can learn. Having a home lab shows you have a home lab. It doesnt show what you learned is quality.
Again, this is completely false. Many people rise in ranks for/because of purely political reasons. That company I talk about all the time here just went through a massive layoff last week - so many people that should not have had jobs were finally let go because new management came in and said we're making this place run like a well oiled machine, no more boobs just hanging on for a ride. Those let go started out in IT, and raised in the ranks and didn't keep their value skills updated - so now they are gone.
-
@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@dafyre said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@dafyre said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@dafyre said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
Why spend valuable free time with family learning something that you will possibly never ever use. Learn something when its needed and save wasted time learning something that's never needed.
Because it is fun, and it is what causes us to move forward in our professions.
Its not as fun as spending time with family. We all have our own needs from life - personally time with loved ones is top priority over learning things I may never use.
I agree here. Spending time with family is a top priority, but so is investing in yourself. I tend to bounce around with my free time (time to myself). Sometimes I'm tinkering in my home lab and other times, I'm not.
I don't see one as taking away from the other. I know for certain that my investments in learning is what has given me so much family time.
Oh, I agree, but I tend to do my learning and such after spending time with my family. Some folks see it as an either/or.
But why do they see it that way? What makes them perceive it as taking time away, rather than, for example, giving time to?
According to some people's perspectives, they see giving time to learning as taking away time for leisure.
Right, but WHY?
This is pretty obvious - because learning isn't their form of leisure.
I think that there is the point, that is the kind of people Scott is looking for.
-
The house of card effect is common from the belief that once hired, you must be good...
https://mangolassi.it/topic/11852/why-it-builds-a-house-of-cards
-
@harry-lui said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
I have a HP Prolant DL380G6 server at home. It's been power off for a year, so I guess my "Home Lab" went to sleep.
lol funny there!
-
@jmoore said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@dafyre said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@dafyre said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@dafyre said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
Why spend valuable free time with family learning something that you will possibly never ever use. Learn something when its needed and save wasted time learning something that's never needed.
Because it is fun, and it is what causes us to move forward in our professions.
Its not as fun as spending time with family. We all have our own needs from life - personally time with loved ones is top priority over learning things I may never use.
I agree here. Spending time with family is a top priority, but so is investing in yourself. I tend to bounce around with my free time (time to myself). Sometimes I'm tinkering in my home lab and other times, I'm not.
I don't see one as taking away from the other. I know for certain that my investments in learning is what has given me so much family time.
Oh, I agree, but I tend to do my learning and such after spending time with my family. Some folks see it as an either/or.
But why do they see it that way? What makes them perceive it as taking time away, rather than, for example, giving time to?
According to some people's perspectives, they see giving time to learning as taking away time for leisure.
Right, but WHY?
This is pretty obvious - because learning isn't their form of leisure.
I think that there is the point, that is the kind of people Scott is looking for.
Right
-
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
Them having a home lab has no basis to prove they will be good or bad at any job.
I'd say it is the largest indicator that we have in the industry. Nothing guarantees that someone will be good. But nothing is a better indicator. Home labs show passion and initiative. Nothing else really does.
Having the desire to get that foot in the door and that first IT job also shows passion and initiative.
eh? Not really. That's only showing a desire to get a paycheck.
Far easier jobs exist for a paycheck. The fact they chose IT shows a desire to get a paycheck in IT. We all desire a paycheck.
Far easier than level 1 tech? That's pretty basic. Learning to be efficient at flipping burgers isn't as easy as it sounds. Actually mopping floors and doing a good job does take real effort.
As someone who has done both, L1 work is most certainly easier than most fast food.
I picked that example because of you
-
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
Its not good to assume those with a lab are more learned than those without who have actual real work experience. Its not good to assume the home lab gave good quality knowledge etc.
Agreed, never suggested otherwise. Same thing goes for work experience. Having work experience doesn't tell us that someone is more learned than someone with a home lab or that what they learned was quality (or even right.)
Yes it does. If its not quality work, or right, they would SHOULD have a history of being fired or are unemployed repeatedly, with no good references other than a statement of employment.
Not in the real world. Companies rarely hire or fire based on those criteria. For one, because it is costly and difficult to do so. Second because if they have a track record of bad hiring, they likely know that replacing that person will be hard. Third, if they can't determine with any reliability before hiring if someone is good, they probably don't know what good or bad IT work looks like so have no idea that they are bad.
You are assuming some idyllic world where hiring is free, firing is simple, and gauging quality on the job is easy. None of these things are true in the real world.
In the UK this is one of the most frequent things that prevent somebody from being employed. If you have gaps on the CV, only records of employment rather than good reviews etc, that will stop the job offer. Not a lab.
That's the "any job" not a "good job" approach. Sure being good at your job isn't the best way to get hired by just anyone. But who wants that?
-
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
Its not good to assume those with a lab are more learned than those without who have actual real work experience. Its not good to assume the home lab gave good quality knowledge etc.
Agreed, never suggested otherwise. Same thing goes for work experience. Having work experience doesn't tell us that someone is more learned than someone with a home lab or that what they learned was quality (or even right.)
Yes it does. If its not quality work, or right, they would SHOULD have a history of being fired or are unemployed repeatedly, with no good references other than a statement of employment.
Not in the real world. Companies rarely hire or fire based on those criteria. For one, because it is costly and difficult to do so. Second because if they have a track record of bad hiring, they likely know that replacing that person will be hard. Third, if they can't determine with any reliability before hiring if someone is good, they probably don't know what good or bad IT work looks like so have no idea that they are bad.
You are assuming some idyllic world where hiring is free, firing is simple, and gauging quality on the job is easy. None of these things are true in the real world.
In the UK this is one of the most frequent things that prevent somebody from being employed. If you have gaps on the CV, only records of employment rather than good reviews etc, that will stop the job offer. Not a lab.
For people who want to ensure that that never happens, there are trivial ways to do things like set up an MSP that is just you and show zero unemployment, ever. Constant employment doesn't mean constant work.
-
@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
As for it rarely paying off - I don't feel the way you described me, I do completely agree with you. People rarely have the clarity and motivation to do it, but those that do, clearly it almost always pays off for them.
Right, so if they know to do it, it pays off. If they don't do it because they don't know or they decide that they don't care, they pay for it later.
Of course, but the point is - you still paid. You just happened to learn that paying for it very very early in life was worth while. This was my only point, that you still DID pay for that learning time.
Yes, but by doing it early I got more out of it. A lot more. It's not that I had to spend more time learning, it's that I learned in better ways (self education, home lab, more applicable material) and did it early on to move my career faster.
-
@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
Them having a home lab has no basis to prove they will be good or bad at any job.
I'd say it is the largest indicator that we have in the industry. Nothing guarantees that someone will be good. But nothing is a better indicator. Home labs show passion and initiative. Nothing else really does.
Having the desire to get that foot in the door and that first IT job also shows passion and initiative.
eh? Not really. That's only showing a desire to get a paycheck.
Far easier jobs exist for a paycheck. The fact they chose IT shows a desire to get a paycheck in IT. We all desire a paycheck.
Far easier than level 1 tech? That's pretty basic. Learning to be efficient at flipping burgers isn't as easy as it sounds. Actually mopping floors and doing a good job does take real effort.
As someone who has done both, L1 work is most certainly easier than most fast food.
I picked that example because of you
Thanks. I'd argue that it is easier than hotel auditor too. And easier than factory work I have done. Easier than mechanical engineering that I have done. Way easier than being a musician. Easier than bagging groceries, too.
-
My daughter and I do discuss the game that she plays while she plays it. But there is a lot of walking around that there isn't much to talk about.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
What is she doing right now? and if it's not, helping dad respond to theses posts, how are you actually spending time together? Hanging out on the couch while doing completely different things - how does this constitute 'hanging out together'?
Of course. Do you not include watching TV or eating dinner together as spending time together? How is this different from my reading her a story?
Everyone watching the same program (not someone sitting there with a device and headphones watching something else), eating together - these are hanging out, or more specifically, family time.
But you both at the kitchen table, you typing on ML, basically ignoring her - not in a mean way, but in the, I'm doing my own thing way, and her reading to herself or whatever... that's not family time, that's not hanging out.. at least not to me.
-
@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
Everyone watching the same program (not someone sitting there with a device and headphones watching something else), eating together - these are hanging out, or more specifically, family time.
I don't agree. Those are all individual activities, nothing "together" other than sharing the same space. Same as staring at your individual phones and texting other people. That you just happen to be doing the same thing with your individual activitiies is a red herring. You are each doing it separately.
-
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@scottalanmiller said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
@jimmy9008 said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
If you are not passionate then it will be clear within the probation and you will be gone.
Obviously this isn't true. We know that most people in IT aren't passionate at all about it. And how would a normal company gauge passion in the probation period? That's not reasonable to assume is even remotely possible. In the US, in the SMB there is no understanding of IT or passion, in the enterprise you rarely even get system access during a probationary period, you just sit in a room waiting for access. Nothing to gauge.
Because either they have developed and can do the work, or they cant. Here a probation is 6 months. If you cant tell that somebody can do that in 6 months, the company is missing something important.
Sure, but companies that hire randomly and hope to determine on the job if someone is good and passionate would be exactly the kinds of companies that wouldn't have the ability to determine that in six months, or ever.
Why would you ever want to look for this after hiring rather than before? Hiring is expensive, don't do it badly on purpose.
Hiring somebody with 'x' years experience is not random at all. Deciding not to hire that person as they don't have a home lab is petty - that's what I'm saying here. Having the lab is no basis for me.
And that's not what he's saying at all.
What he is saying is.. if two people apply for the same job, and one has a home lab full of that same technology that the guy who has been working for x years in, the lab guy you KNOW has passion about that tech. So that gives the lab guy a leg up.
If they both have x years experience, and one has a home lab... he automatically wins bonus points because of the shown passion.
-
@dashrender said in Would You Hire Someone in IT Who Does Not Have a Home Lab:
But you both at the kitchen table, you typing on ML, basically ignoring her - not in a mean way, but in the, I'm doing my own thing way, and her reading to herself or whatever... that's not family time, that's not hanging out.. at least not to me.
No more ignoring that if we were watching a show or eating food together. Same amount of interactivity.
Actually, we do more together this way. I watch HER play a game, not just watch the same thing that she is watching. And we discuss the game as she plays. We wouldn't do those things if eating or watching television.
So this is very much more interactive and more family time than the things most people consider family time.
