S/O stalker candidate: job search advice columns

[Sirius]

I've been asked to translate things written in medical-speak into layperson's language.  Is that considered knowing another language?  (I know it isn't.)  A friend of one of my co-workers brought me an Emergency Room form where the doctor had written the whole thing out in medical shorthand, and the friend was petrified that it said she was a lot worse off than she actually was.  I translated it into layperson's language, and it said exactly what he'd told her.  Still, it would have been nice for him to have written it so someone who didn't understand all the arcane symbols and abbreviations could have understood, especially since patients were given copies of the sheet, and supposedly he knew this. 

[supotco]

Describing your language skills accurately is great. It's great to put "Beginning Mandarin" on your resume. If you write "Fluent in Mandarin" be prepared to answer questions... in Mandarin.

Someone hired a new staffer at my job who claimed to speak German with near fluency. Now, I might make this claim, but I have a BA in German and lived there for a year.

I tried to get him to do some tax forms - basically claiming not to be taxable in Germany because of being a tax resident of the UK. Since they have to go to German authorities, they are in German.

He couldn't. He looked completely baffled. It was embarrassing for him, and annoying for me, because that meant *I* had to do them when I had lots on already.

[mesmer242]

Describing your language skills accurately is great. It's great to put "Beginning Mandarin" on your resume. If you write "Fluent in Mandarin" be prepared to answer questions... in Mandarin.

Someone hired a new staffer at my job who claimed to speak German with near fluency. Now, I might make this claim, but I have a BA in German and lived there for a year.

I tried to get him to do some tax forms - basically claiming not to be taxable in Germany because of being a tax resident of the UK. Since they have to go to German authorities, they are in German.

He couldn't. He looked completely baffled. It was embarrassing for him, and annoying for me, because that meant *I* had to do them when I had lots on already.

Wouldn't that be a pretty specialized vocabulary? I don't know how the tax forms are for Germany, but in the US, it is almost like they're written in a different language.

[supotco]

Describing your language skills accurately is great. It's great to put "Beginning Mandarin" on your resume. If you write "Fluent in Mandarin" be prepared to answer questions... in Mandarin.

Someone hired a new staffer at my job who claimed to speak German with near fluency. Now, I might make this claim, but I have a BA in German and lived there for a year.

I tried to get him to do some tax forms - basically claiming not to be taxable in Germany because of being a tax resident of the UK. Since they have to go to German authorities, they are in German.

He couldn't. He looked completely baffled. It was embarrassing for him, and annoying for me, because that meant *I* had to do them when I had lots on already.

Wouldn't that be a pretty specialized vocabulary? I don't know how the tax forms are for Germany, but in the US, it is almost like they're written in a different language.

Not so much - the US's are a lot less clear than any British ones I have ever seen A lot of it is the basic stuff like name, address, date of birth, taxpayer ID then bits like where you claim to be a tax resident of and what article of the tax treaty you're claiming exemption under (tax treaties usually have subheadings anyway). I would expect a near fluent speaker to be able to understand most of such a form/instructions right away and then look up specialist vocabulary online. Not gaze at it in horror.

[Lynda_34]

I've been asked to translate things written in medical-speak into layperson's language.  Is that considered knowing another language?  (I know it isn't.)  A friend of one of my co-workers brought me an Emergency Room form where the doctor had written the whole thing out in medical shorthand, and the friend was petrified that it said she was a lot worse off than she actually was.  I translated it into layperson's language, and it said exactly what he'd told her.  Still, it would have been nice for him to have written it so someone who didn't understand all the arcane symbols and abbreviations could have understood, especially since patients were given copies of the sheet, and supposedly he knew this. 

I don't see why you can't claim something like "Medical Terminology Background."
I understand your question is rhetorical, however, there are specific sciences or professions (lawyers might be an example, accounting another) where the specialized language is important and only people who understand the complicated terms can explain it to a lay person.
I used to make sure my students weren't intimidated by highly educated people, just because you're a rocket scientist with a PhD does not mean you are going to understand other things. 

[blarg314]

For language, I would say that "Elementary" or "High School" implies some knowledge - you can figure out basic texts, ask for directions, go shopping and handle simple conversations.

"Conversational" means that you have enough to carry on a normal conversation and the tasks of daily life, you've got a decent grasp of the grammar, but may be missing specialized or advanced vocabulary.

"Fluent" means that you can function in that language in a society and working environment that uses that language. You may use odd phrasing on occasion, or miss esoteric words, but it's a minor issue.

"Native" means that you can function like someone who has been speaking the language from infancy.

If your writing and speech don't match in some aspect then you can specify that - "Conversational spoken Mandarin, elementary written (traditional script)", or specify if you have expertise in relevant technical vocabulary.

[Raintree]

The advice I got that sucked, for up-and-coming professionals, was "Go to networking events." I loathed these but I did my best to give it a shot. The premise is good: make contacts and form business rel@tionships with other people to refer business back and forth.

However, these events tended to be full of multi-level marketers trying to peddle their miracle vitamins, who weren't the slightest bit interested in what other people did. They'd call the next day and want to meet to chat. Which is encouraged in the networking world. But it would turn out that they only wanted you to sit through some MLM presentation of theirs.

Oh, there were legit people there too, but in reality, especially when you are just starting out, how much business can you really refer to others? I really don't know anyone who is looking for an accountant, a real estate agent, or the multitudes of graphic designers I used to meet.

[jaxsue]

I read a real encouraging articile on Yahoo today. According to "experts," passive job hunters (those currently employed) have a better shot at getting a position than those who are actively searching (i.e. unemployed).

Makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy inside. 

[Elfqueen13]

I read a real encouraging articile on Yahoo today. According to "experts," passive job hunters (those currently employed) have a better shot at getting a position than those who are actively searching (i.e. unemployed).

Makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy inside. 

Never really understood that one.  When I was contracting I was more likely to get a contract if I wasn't working because I could start immediately.

[jaxsue]

I read a real encouraging articile on Yahoo today. According to "experts," passive job hunters (those currently employed) have a better shot at getting a position than those who are actively searching (i.e. unemployed).

Makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy inside. 

Never really understood that one.  When I was contracting I was more likely to get a contract if I wasn't working because I could start immediately.

That's how I thought it was. I do think that these "experts" are getting more bizarre, because the tips are making less sense as time goes by.

[Elfqueen13]

I read a real encouraging articile on Yahoo today. According to "experts," passive job hunters (those currently employed) have a better shot at getting a position than those who are actively searching (i.e. unemployed).

Makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy inside. 

Never really understood that one.  When I was contracting I was more likely to get a contract if I wasn't working because I could start immediately.

That's how I thought it was. I do think that these "experts" are getting more bizarre, because the tips are making less sense as time goes by.

My husband had an "interview" yesterday and was told by the interviewer that his resume didn't show how his education matched up with his previous jobs.  Uh, it doesn't.  He went back to school to change careers.  I put interview in quotes because after being told he was coming in to talk about an internal position he was instead treated to a sales pitch for their product - some sort of background check thing.

[SiderisAnon]

I put interview in quotes because after being told he was coming in to talk about an internal position he was instead treated to a sales pitch for their product - some sort of background check thing.

I've run into that numerous times job hunting here.  There may never have been an actual "job".  Companies use supposed interviews to try and get you to sell their product or service to others.  It's not a "job", it's a "career opportunity". (Or somesuch garbage.)

What the job search advice columns I've seen need is more advice on avoiding scams and sales/pyramid schemes.  As the economy has gone down, more of those seem to be hitting the local paper acting like legitimate jobs.

[Elfqueen13]

I put interview in quotes because after being told he was coming in to talk about an internal position he was instead treated to a sales pitch for their product - some sort of background check thing.

I've run into that numerous times job hunting here.  There may never have been an actual "job".  Companies use supposed interviews to try and get you to sell their product or service to others.  It's not a "job", it's a "career opportunity". (Or somesuch garbage.)

What the job search advice columns I've seen need is more advice on avoiding scams and sales/pyramid schemes.  As the economy has gone down, more of those seem to be hitting the local paper acting like legitimate jobs.

That's what was frustrating about it.  He was there last week, heard their pitch, told them he was not interested and that it was not in our budget.  The owner told him she had an internal opening and to come back on Tuesday (yesterday).  Once he was there, she told him she'd decided not to open the position and proceeded to pitch her product again, this time with criticism for his resume!

[mesmer242]

I read a real encouraging articile on Yahoo today. According to "experts," passive job hunters (those currently employed) have a better shot at getting a position than those who are actively searching (i.e. unemployed).

Makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy inside. 

Never really understood that one.  When I was contracting I was more likely to get a contract if I wasn't working because I could start immediately.

The idea is similar to the one that says "people are attracted to people who are already taken" because it is a signal of their attractiveness. Silly, yes, but I think there might be some empirical data backing up the "having a job makes it easier to get a job" claim. I can't remember where I've seen it though.

[Elfqueen13]

I read a real encouraging articile on Yahoo today. According to "experts," passive job hunters (those currently employed) have a better shot at getting a position than those who are actively searching (i.e. unemployed).

Makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy inside. 

Never really understood that one.  When I was contracting I was more likely to get a contract if I wasn't working because I could start immediately.

The idea is similar to the one that says "people are attracted to people who are already taken" because it is a signal of their attractiveness. Silly, yes, but I think there might be some empirical data backing up the "having a job makes it easier to get a job" claim. I can't remember where I've seen it though.

I've seen the studies.  I just don't understand why that's the case, especially now with the lay-off rate so high.