The Gooch

QUOTE (Disco72 @ Mar 15, 2011 -> 02:03 PM) I don't think we're as far apart as it may seem. Mostly, I was trying to convey the importance of these things to those that may be applying for jobs or schools, especially getting good references (either letter writers or those that are contacted by the potential employer/school). If I had to read them every day, I think I would be pretty sick of them too! Yeah I definitely agree. Letters of rec seem to have the ability to do more damage to an applicant than vice versa. I actually enjoy reading some of the cover letters, as they can be quite interesting (I just don't think they assist with the selection process enough for the amount of time it takes to read them). However, if I have to read "I know that I would be a great asset to this organization one more time... So I guess if I had a tip for writing cover letter it would be to be interesting, original, intelligent, and to proof read. Cater it to each organization. You are better off applying to 3 jobs in a day with well-written, unique cover letters then to apply to 10 jobs with a cookie cutter cover letter (and resume). I will mainly use a cover letter to determine if an applicant goes on in the hiring process when they are right on the edge of moving on. Before that, they are simply tools to eliminate applicants rather than assets that can get an applicant to the next stage.

QUOTE (Disco72 @ Mar 15, 2011 -> 12:40 PM) I don't totally agree with you, but the first scan should always be qualifications for the job. I agree that nobody should advance just because of a good or clever cover letter if they don't have skills, knowledge, and ability to perform the job. Like cover letters, a lot of recommendation letters are cookie cutter, but as someone who both writes them for people applying to jobs and school and reads applicants' letters, there are lots of subtleties in letters of recommendation. I've written pretty mediocre letters of recommendation that the person I was writing it for thought was great, but I'm sure the person reading them could tell that I was not exactly praising the applicant to the highest. I guess I'm agreeing with SS2k5 that be sure you have good references because just because someone agrees to be a reference (or a letter writer) doesn't mean they'll sing your praises above anyone else's. I actually recently read a letter for someone applying for a PhD program that stated the person needed to learn to write better... don't you think that applicant would like to have that letter back? (As an aside, I always share the letter I write with the person who asks me to write it - I'm all for full disclosure). I agree that you can find out important information from letter of recommendation, and I also agree with you about full disclosure. I just think calling a reference is much better than asking for a letter of recommendation.. Subjective information from a letter can be misinterpreted without a little prodding. I could find out much more about an applicant in a 5 minute reference interview, or even an email. Those in charge of selection are usually looking for some specific knowledge, skills, and abilities. Instead of a general letter of recommendation that may or may not tell you what you want to know, how about an email with specific questions or a prompt that you ask the applicant to give to their references and send back? This will get at what you really want to know. Make the last question just about additional comments about the applicant so that you will get some of the unique information about an applicant that you might find in some letters of rec. I guess I probably should be more clear in what I have been trying to say. I do not think cover letters and letters of recommendation are useless. I do think that there are more efficient and productive methods to determine the best applicant(s).

QUOTE (Disco72 @ Mar 14, 2011 -> 10:07 PM) A lot of cover letters may be cookie cutter, but sometimes you really do see something different and interesting (or vice versa, something that kills an applicant's chances). I still think they serve a useful purpose. I think this is more often true for the latter. Cover letters can be useful, but they are not worth the cost and time it takes to read them. Especially with the volume of applications that are received today due to the internet. If you don't have the basic qualifications, you probably aren't getting an interview. If you get an interview because of a clever cover letter, you will most likely be weeded out during the interview process. The only bigger wastes of time that are commonly used are letters of recommendation (but these are mostly used for internships, college admission, etc, and not so much for actual jobs anymore).

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 14, 2011 -> 10:51 AM) When it comes to a persons resume, and this is from a person that interviews people from time to time, sometimes, less is more. Things I hate and immediately notice when going through resumes: 1) Super busy resumes filled with nonsense that nobody cares about, strewn about the entire surface of the paper as to make it look more impressive than it actually is. To me, that shows the person is trying to throw stuff at the wall rather than being concise about what it is they can actually do. On a resume, WHITE space = good. I want to know the basics about you by glancing at the top half of page 1, and if I can't...I'll find another one that can. 2) Resume fabrication whores that do nothing but flatter themselves in their "scope of work"/experience section with gobs of what I call "impossibilities". For example, a person claiming they installed a network of 50,000 servers, spread over 14 states. Reason: Because no you didn't...you assisted many other people with such an implementation, but you didn't do it yourself, so don't make it sound like you did. 3) The "Impossible Skillset liar-face". Example Skillset: Windows 7, Windows XP, *nix (Linux/Unix), Mac OSX, VAX, Mainframe, C++, Java, C#, Scripting, Perl, PHP, HTML, Cisco Routers/Firewalls, Checkpoint, etc... Basically, they claim to know everything about everything related to a specific industry. These are immediately dismissed, because no you don't...and if you did, you wouldn't have to look for jobs...ever, because jobs would look for you. 4) The "I work at every company for 1 year and move on, and in that 1 year, I did 50,000,000 things" exaggerator. This is the guy/gal that has a list of previous employment that reads like an encyclopedia. 9 months here. 8 months there. 1 year here. 11 months there. This means you can't hold a job, or you are a unloyal b****face (which is fine to look out for yourself, but don't let your past employment spell this out in big bold letters), because I'll take a chance on someone that might be more loyal out of the box. Oh, and somehow, during their short little stint at the company, they somehow accomplished 5 years worth of work/projects...which again...no, they didn't. 5) The "10 Pound Resume" dickface. If I need to work out with Rock in order to lift your stupid resume, you aren't working here. There is some information you do not need to include...such as where you worked 20 years ago. If there is a need for me to go that far back in your employment history, I'll ask for it...but if it's going to make you're resume more than 2 pages, just stop. 6) The "MVP Award" Whoremonger. A.K.A: I was a superstar MVP employee at all of my previous places of employment and won awards for being so awesome, yet I need a new job. Why? If you were so awesomely invaluable, why didn't they promote you to some position that paid you millions of dollars to assure that they kept your awesome services? ----- If it's on your resume, it's open game. For example, if you claim you can type 90WPM, you might run into an interviewer like myself that says...ok, show me the money, Jerry. So if you printed it, you'd better be able to do it...and not only do it, but do it under pressure, such as in an interview. I have many tips for resumes/interviews, but so much of this skill is in feeling out your interviewer...and figuring out what they like, and somehow talking about it. For example, I got my first job in the IT industry because the interviewer found out, during the interview, that I played the game Quake online. I am a human resources intern and I spend a lot of time reviewing resumes. I see a lot of what you see and I agree with most of what you said. I might have limited experience, but have noticed a lot of what you are talking about. I actually saw a resume a few weeks back for an administrative position where the woman listed her karate achievements on her resume (example: 3rd place in tournament 2006). I don't know what she was going for there. I would like to add to your list as well. I am quite confused as to why companies still demand cover letters. Every single one says the same thing. It is an overview of the resume, followed by "I know that I would be a great fit for your organization" and "I look forward to hearing from you" I don't even read them except to confirm that the person applying can write complete sentences. I truly want to thank you for this post. You just listed what goes through my mind every day. Eight page resumes and handling over $50,000 in cash does not impress me. When I get the chance to start interviewing, I will definitely have many questions on applicants' actual involvement with these large projects of managing 9,000 employees, or my favorite "increasing revenue by 75% since I was hired." Also if you can't fit your accomplishments on one or two pages (with a few exceptions for certain professions), then it has a good chance of not even reaching the hiring manager. As for your last tip of figuring out what the interviewer is interested in and talking about: You are absolutely correct and that is probably one of the best tips that can be offered. However, that also has a lot to do with what is wrong with the selection process in many HR departments. "Gut feelings" and "verbal cues" are two of the most commonly used selection method with no validity. No matter how well someone thinks that they can "feel someone out" and "pick a good fit for the organization," they probably don't do it very well. There are much better selection methods available that are much more cost efficient in the end.

QUOTE (Brian @ Mar 3, 2011 -> 10:48 AM) As smart as it was to vote Russell out, throwing challenges this early is stupid, especially when Russell is good at those challenges. Could be the beginning of a losing streak for them...

Money Having sex Pizza Hot Dogs Sports Music Alcoholic beverages

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 1, 2011 -> 11:43 AM) That sounds like how Justified started. The first few episodes didn't seem to have any major plotline to follow, just the character solving a crime on each show. I stopped watching because of that, and apparently it got better and better after I stopped lol. Perhaps that's what will happen with this show. Thats kind of how the Shield started too. They all start the story line with the first episode, start on tangent of unrelated episodes, and close up the story the last few episodes of the season.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 19, 2011 -> 06:39 PM) Learn the minor pentatonic scale ("the blues scale") and get comfortable moving that figure up and down the fretboard to improvise solos in different keys - A at the 5th fret, E at the 12th fret, etc. Have fun! I would learn the major scale as well

QUOTE (chw42 @ Feb 20, 2011 -> 06:39 PM) Buehrle starting opening day against Cleveland = bad memories. He beat them 1-0 in 2005

QUOTE (Brian @ Feb 17, 2011 -> 12:00 PM) I would guess at the merge. Will someone only come back once or multiple times? They made it seem like once, but who knows

I wonder when the winner of the Redemption Island gets to come back to the game. I would guess at the merge. I could Rob or Russell being the person to come back in the game, as they are both good at challenges. It would be a big mistake letting Russell get to the merge, but they might not have a choice if he goes to Redemption Island and wins his way back in. Rob is playing it all right so far, and he has enough crazy/dumb people in his tribe to make it pretty far.

QUOTE (Brian @ Feb 15, 2011 -> 06:07 PM) Survivor tomorrow! Deal with it, haters! Yes! Who do you think will make if further, Boston Rob or Russell?

I like fast food burgers, debut albums, and tv series finales

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2011 -> 11:37 AM) How does Arcade Fire win album of the year but lose their subcategory? WTF? That stuff happens all the time. If you remember when Kanye West interrupted Taylor Swift at the MTV awards, Swift had beat out Beyonce for female video of the year. Later that night, Beyonce won video of the year over Swift and others. Music award shows don't make much sense anymore which is why I stopped watching them (except for the occasional channel change to see how much cleavage Katy Perry is showing that night).

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Feb 9, 2011 -> 11:40 PM) What is wrong with hunting? What is wrong with taking the life of another animal responsibly after allowing it to live a natural life? What is wrong about buying licenses that fund conservation efforts? What is wrong with attempting to control animal populations which have been allowed to run rampant thanks to deforestation and the culling of natural predators? Do you know the havoc deer can wreak upon an environment? And do you know how factory farms operate? The nutritional deficiencies vegans just beg for? What soy actually is, and what it's milk has done to children? Do you know what life is, and that death is simply a part of it? That death is required for life? Yeah, Mark really comes off as a douche here, caring about dogs and having the sac to appreciate where his meat comes from, rather than just picking it up out of the store all the time and ignoring where it came from. Best post of the thread.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 1, 2011 -> 01:01 PM) Most of the Cubs fans I know are harmless though. I'm sure it's different in the Chicago metropolitan area, but the Cubs fans I know still just like to get drunk and talk a little harmless s*** that gets thrown right back at them. I'm sure its much different because everything here is Sox vs Cubs. Cubs fan had the edge until 2005. Now their only argument is attendance because we have a pretty recent WS title and have been better for the most part since then. My rebuttal is always that attendance is why the Cubs haven't won in so long. People will show up no matter how well they do. Keep going to Wrigley and it might be another century! Anyways, GO STEELERS!

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 30, 2011 -> 12:11 PM) I feel the exact same way about Pittsburgh, but I have never met fans more annoying than Packers fans - some weird sort of entitlement. Um....Cubs fans? They never win anything and still talk a lot of smack

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 27, 2011 -> 01:00 PM) But then you would get no more cocktails. My fraternity brothers always said that drinking whiskey helps cure you. And they'd always end up sicker and worse off. I would not want them taking care of me when I was sick. I was sick about 2 weeks ago for a couple days. Drank half a bottle of Makers Mark on Friday night and woke up Saturday feeling great!

When does Justified start back up?

Saw True Grit. The ending was a lot more depressing than the original movie (haven't read the book) Overall good movie. Liked John Wayne better than Jeff Bridges, but Mattie Ross was awesome in this movie. I didn't hate Matt Damon like I thought I was going to in this role. I guess I forgot how annoying his character was supposed to be and how well he can pull that off. While there are a lot fewer westerns that come out nowadays, the ones that do come out tend to be really good and I'm fine with that.

Wes Welker mentions feet 10 times

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 04:03 PM) I guess it just depends if you feel that the voting is a flaw in the game. Personally I think Probst feels that voting is the what makes the game. That if there was no voting you could simply lie, cheat, steal your way to victory and not even worry. Who cares what you say or do, as long as you get further in the game. The voting element is what tries to make people think twice about playing the way Russel has. You may get to the end (and second place gets a prize so its not the worst) but you are unlikely to win, so you have to try and balance how you play the game. Or just be charming enough that you can stab some one in the back and then still convince them to vote for you. That is where Russell is weak. Sandra is interesting. She has won Survivor twice, which makes her arguably the best at the game. The reason why she won Heroes-Villains had little to do with her, and more to do with the mistakes of Russel. For whatever reason Russel never fully grasped the threat of having Sandra in the final 3 with Parvarti and him. Had he thought it through he would have realized that he could not bring some one who had been openly antagonistic to him to the final 3. He had to pick 3 people who had allied with him and screwed people, hoping that the jury would select him because he had earned it. His second problem was Parvarti. Parvarti had been a target from day 1, and the longer she stayed in the game, the more respect she earned. Not only that, but because she had been targeted by everyone she didnt have the same "backstabbing" stigma that Russel had, because people felt she was just playing to stay alive. I mean if Russel brings Jeri, I think Russel has a 50/50 shot of winning. Parvarti was more likable but she already has won, Jeri is one of the least liked so she probably gets very few votes. Russel had full control on his decision of who to take and he just dropped the ball. If you remember Parvarti told Russel this, but Russel refused to listen to her. Picking who you are going against in the jury is one of the biggest strategical decisions, if not the biggest. Russell seems to think of it constantly in terms of a game and thinks everyone has the same views he does. He tried to bring players that did nothing (Sandra and Natalie) because he thought that the jury would vote for the better player. That is his biggest flaw, thinking of it as just a game and he forgets about the real life social aspects.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 12:17 PM) Tom just got his ass beat in Heroes vs Villains. He didn't even belong in that elite company. As for Russell, whatever. The dude made the final show both seasons he was on, and if it weren't for people voting like b****es should have won both times. He completely dominated both seasons. He definitely should have won the first season. He got to the end being way down in numbers at the merge and controlled the entire game. In heroes vs villains I thought Parvarti deserved to win. Sandra was ridiculous winner that season. The show sometimes bothers me because the deserving winner usually doesn't win.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 11:30 AM) When you have a great passing game, you only need to have an average running game. Sure you don't want to average 1.9 yards per carry, but anything around 3.5 will do. Look at the Arizona Cardinals from two years ago. They were ranked what 31st in the league in rushing. They got to the Super Bowl against a great defense and ran the ball 9 times. Yeah and the opposite is often true as well. The more balanced team is the one that will usually win it all though.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 10:24 AM) I can't see one game where a lack of a running game was the obvious reason we lost. I don't watch most Packers games, but I'm sure that defenses not having to worry about you guys running the ball has cost you some offensive production and a game or two. Hell, if Starks didn't show up in that playoff game it might have been an Eagles W.