Yeah, I understand the proofs from a hypothetical perspective what I don’t understand is the measures. How can someone claim they are top-tier talent when there is no defined criteria for making such a claim? This sounds like HR-talk, not industry standard.
It varies wildly, but at the end of the day its about skills being rare and valuable. People
with rare skills, who can prove they have those skills, and can consistently perform complex/difficult tasks and be reliable are what I would consider “top tier”
Asking for some specific defined standard is being pedantic. The standard is being capable of things that others are not, and that’s true across any industry. Each one will have its own measurements (certifications, work portfolios, references, etc.) by which those are defined.
I don’t think it’s pedantic if someone claims to be top-tier and they have no standard by which to weigh that claim, it’s like saying I’m certified. What am I certified in and how is that certification even relevant to the conversation at hand?
I could claim I am top-tier talent, but so can anyone else. That means anyone and everyone who does difficult work or is capable of difficult work falls in that category.
I’ve done a few rounds of selecting resumes and interviewing for jobs at my company and there can be pretty wild differences between candidates. Some people just seem like they never stop. They do well in school, have a bunch of personal projects, work a bunch of jobs, and show an interest and drive in what they do. And I’m mostly looking at students for intern roles or recent grads for entry-level engineering roles. Once you start looking to fill more senior positions, work experience can vary even more wildly.
Part of it is how skilled they are at making a resume or CV and spinning everything they’ve done into the best possible light, or even just remembering/knowing to list all relevant skills. Like a lot of people know excel, but I could only award points to those who listed it on their resume.
Top-tier would be a candidate that matches all of the need to haves and matches most of the like to haves for the position. They’ve got relevant education, sometimes beyond the minimum requirements. They’ve got work experience, sometimes decades of it in leadership roles. They might have papers published in their field. They might be names that you’ve heard of before seeing their resume.
And on the flip side, there’s some awful candidates out there that wouldn’t be selected even if it means leaving the position vacant for now. Like people who learned something well enough to pass their tests (assuming they aren’t just lying outright about having the skill) but can’t answer basic practical questions about it. In one interview (remote), the guy obviously had a friend helping him answer questions (you could hear the whispering, it was pretty funny) but even his friend had no clue.
Yeah, I understand the proofs from a hypothetical perspective what I don’t understand is the measures. How can someone claim they are top-tier talent when there is no defined criteria for making such a claim? This sounds like HR-talk, not industry standard.
It varies wildly, but at the end of the day its about skills being rare and valuable. People with rare skills, who can prove they have those skills, and can consistently perform complex/difficult tasks and be reliable are what I would consider “top tier”
Asking for some specific defined standard is being pedantic. The standard is being capable of things that others are not, and that’s true across any industry. Each one will have its own measurements (certifications, work portfolios, references, etc.) by which those are defined.
I don’t think it’s pedantic if someone claims to be top-tier and they have no standard by which to weigh that claim, it’s like saying I’m certified. What am I certified in and how is that certification even relevant to the conversation at hand?
I could claim I am top-tier talent, but so can anyone else. That means anyone and everyone who does difficult work or is capable of difficult work falls in that category.
This is a silly question
You’re getting there
I’ve done a few rounds of selecting resumes and interviewing for jobs at my company and there can be pretty wild differences between candidates. Some people just seem like they never stop. They do well in school, have a bunch of personal projects, work a bunch of jobs, and show an interest and drive in what they do. And I’m mostly looking at students for intern roles or recent grads for entry-level engineering roles. Once you start looking to fill more senior positions, work experience can vary even more wildly.
Part of it is how skilled they are at making a resume or CV and spinning everything they’ve done into the best possible light, or even just remembering/knowing to list all relevant skills. Like a lot of people know excel, but I could only award points to those who listed it on their resume.
Top-tier would be a candidate that matches all of the need to haves and matches most of the like to haves for the position. They’ve got relevant education, sometimes beyond the minimum requirements. They’ve got work experience, sometimes decades of it in leadership roles. They might have papers published in their field. They might be names that you’ve heard of before seeing their resume.
And on the flip side, there’s some awful candidates out there that wouldn’t be selected even if it means leaving the position vacant for now. Like people who learned something well enough to pass their tests (assuming they aren’t just lying outright about having the skill) but can’t answer basic practical questions about it. In one interview (remote), the guy obviously had a friend helping him answer questions (you could hear the whispering, it was pretty funny) but even his friend had no clue.