Lf gov't job opening (UPDATE: it's been filled!)

[Jmarmck]

When I see specialized requirements this tells me that the person is already chosen. The advertisement is only to satisfy the rules of government hiring.

[Paul Metcalf]

I remember attending a Jack Boucher presentation a lot of years ago at a View Camera Conference about the required methods and procedures for documenting historic government buildings. It had to be large format (because you had to use rise/fall and swings to completely avoid any distortion), and it had to be black and white (don't remember if there was a particular film requirement) developed in "their" lab, and the prints had to be contact prints on silver chloride paper only (of which at the time had been and was Kodak Azo). Don't remember if there was a size requirement. I imagine those "rules" are pretty much all gone now with the <near> termination of silver chloride paper and full advent of "born-digital." I would take the job, but could only do about 20% of what they list, and I would not reside in Washington DC but rather in my humble abode in Idaho, from which the attached view the other morning from my west facing windows, LOL.

[Old-N-Feeble]

So cronyism and favoritism doesn't exist in the private sector?

Of course it does but it's not "supposed" to be a part of government. If it's proven, it's actionable by law. The problem is "proving" it.

[goamules]

Conspiracy theories aside, almost all government jobs are now posted through USAjobs. Someone has to write the job description, and they run the gambit from very brief and meaningless, to excessively detailed. And the Gov often doesn't allow a hiring manager to even see the applicants, until the "go between" agency reviews, vets, and sends them THEIR choices. I place people on jobs for half my career, as a technical recruiter. Many a time I've been told "I cannot look at your person's resume, you must apply online." The nameless, faceless, unqualified person in HR or these "applicant management" vendors is a much bigger catastrophe for job seekers, than the proverbial "good ole boy" network of old. In the old days, you applied to the person that actually LISTED the job, and talked your way into an interview. Today, robotic HR people try to match up keywords to job descriptions that they have been given - knowing nothing about the actual job. If there is a gap, they don't know enough to ask the applicant. They just round file the resume. Great people get passed by. Happens hundreds of times a day all over America, as we try to have a "fair" hiring system.

[Corran]

I applied. This kind of work really appeals to me and I've already done quite a bit of historical and local documentary work. While I don't necessarily have all of those KSA skills, most of them I do or at least have basic knowledge of.

Regarding the requirements, this is typical of gov't work in my experience. The job I have now has a two-page list of required duties/knowledge, but when I leave (soon), they will settle for pretty much anyone that satisfies a few of those things. The "standards" look like language someone invented to describe the work, but whether or not it's really applicable is questionable. Whether or not they have an internal candidate setup is really independent of the job requirements. I've seen it happen with lots of jobs. I was technically a "known" candidate for my job now (I knew the hiring manager and most of my coworkers) but I was also far and away the most qualified candidate.

My main question here was where the work would be done and with what equipment.

Well, we'll see what happens. Would be a cool opportunity.

[goamules]

Good luck! Work it from all angles, as you know.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Conspiracy theories aside, almost all government jobs are now posted through USAjobs. Someone has to write the job description, and they run the gambit from very brief and meaningless, to excessively detailed. And the Gov often doesn't allow a hiring manager to even see the applicants, until the "go between" agency reviews, vets, and sends them THEIR choices. I place people on jobs for half my career, as a technical recruiter. Many a time I've been told "I cannot look at your person's resume, you must apply online." The nameless, faceless, unqualified person in HR or these "applicant management" vendors is a much bigger catastrophe for job seekers, than the proverbial "good ole boy" network of old. In the old days, you applied to the person that actually LISTED the job, and talked your way into an interview. Today, robotic HR people try to match up keywords to job descriptions that they have been given - knowing nothing about the actual job. If there is a gap, they don't know enough to ask the applicant. They just round file the resume. Great people get passed by. Happens hundreds of times a day all over America, as we try to have a "fair" hiring system.

Yes... the hiring officials are sent a list of "qualified applicants". If their preferred person isn't on the list, they have the option of closing the position opening and trying again with modified requirements. If the person is on the list, they can simply choose the one they want even if they're near the bottom of the list.

Conspiracy theory? Nope... just the way the system works.

[goamules]

No, that's the way the system used to work. Today, as I explained, the hiring manager has no say. He is handed a few resumes out of the hundreds of applicants (for my kind of jobs) from HR or the Hiring Management company, usually an outside vendor. All he can say to those he receives is Yes/No. He doesn't get to ask to review all those that agency rejected. I try to had deliver my highly qualified candidates every day, for dozens of large companies. 99% of the time you are blocked by the HR system I described. Allowing the hiring manager find an excellent candidate himself is going the way of ticker tapes. It's all bureaucracy now, the kind that gives us all these problems like missing terrorists, by the way. PC, even if it hurts business and the country.

[Corran]

I know here our Social Equity department. culls the applicants down so as to include a representative number of minorities and women, regardless of the applicant's level of education or experience, before the hiring department even sees the list. This makes sense superficially, but since the SE dept. doesn't know anything about art, music, etc., or even cares about the minimum requirements, it makes no sense to push through minorities that have, say, only a high school diploma but are applying for a faculty position (this has happened).

[Old-N-Feeble]

No, that's the way the system used to work. Today, as I explained, the hiring manager has no say. He is handed a few resumes out of the hundreds of applicants (for my kind of jobs) from HR or the Hiring Management company, usually an outside vendor. All he can say to those he receives is Yes/No. He doesn't get to ask to review all those that agency rejected. I try to had deliver my highly qualified candidates every day, for dozens of large companies. 99% of the time you are blocked by the HR system I described. Allowing the hiring manager find an excellent candidate himself is going the way of ticker tapes. It's all bureaucracy now, the kind that gives us all these problems like missing terrorists, by the way. PC, even if it hurts business and the country.

You missed my point. Yes, the hiring officials are given a list of qualified applicants. They can close the job offer if their preferred person isn't on the list. They can try again later with or without modifying the requirements. They can repeat the process until the person they want is on the list. Then they select that person from the list. Despite what you think, there is little change from the way it always was.