A few comments on Duke's comments from a recruiter's POV:
Duke Leto wrote:
1) For me, with my level of experience, being swarmed by recruiters is a real problem. If you're at a job and you post to a job board for a new one, do not specify your cell phone as the preferred means of contact. It's just awkward for everyone.
If you don't want to be called, don't put your number. That little "preferred means of contact" is about as useful as leaving a pile of money on the street with a "please don't take this" sign on it. You may get one or 2 people to actually listen, but that money is gone pretty fast.
Just put down however you want to be contacted and leave off however you don't want to be.
Duke Leto wrote:
2) You can probably safely ignore anyone who "found your resume on Monster" who doesn't appear to have a very good command of the English language, or who provides a list of jobs you may be interested in. Odds are they haven't looked at your resume too closely.
2 of the top 3 recruiters at my company (I'm actually not 100% recruiting anymore, so I'm not in running for that title anymore ;) aren't from the US, write e-mails in fairly shoddy English, and one of which barely speaks the language. Recruiting is a matter of how much work you put in, sales, and how good you are at reading people. English means very little.
As for the "found your resume online," "job opportunity," or "looking for a senior developer" e-mails you receive, think of it from our side of things. We have many ways of finding people. Believe it or not, the worst way statistically to find people is on job boards like Monster. Therefore, we would rather spend the bulk of our time going through our networks of people, getting referrals, or trying to headhunt people straight out of companies. So we'll go online, do a fairly targeted search (well, the better recruiters will do targeted searches, some people will just email everyone in the world), and shoot out a mass e-mail to everyone that comes up. When we get replies, we go through them, knowing these are people who are already interested in talking about a new position. So don't rule out people right away just because they e-mail you like that.
There's actually a better way to tell if a recruiter is good, but I'll address that below.
Duke Leto wrote:
3) If you specified a list of locations you are willing to relocate to or are willing to work at, and you get an email from a recruiter wanting to place you on the far side of the country/globe, you can probably ignore these as well. (Unless you just left a job as a Sr. Developer for Oracle/Microsoft and are deperately wanted by a fortune 500.)
Unless the recruiter has a damn good reason to contact you (you put that you're moving to a new place, one of your possible locations to work is near where the job being offered is, or you at least went to school or worked in that location before), I'd say just ignore it, no matter who it's from. Seriously, if there's absolutely no reason to contact you, then that recruiter fell into the "e-mail the world and hope for the best" strat.
Duke Leto wrote:
4) Sad to say, your status as an American National is an important selling point.
Yea, it really is. You'd be suprised how many people in IT require a work visa or sponsorship, which many companies don't want to deal with. If you're an american citizen or green card holder, and there's a field to specify so, put it down and be very clear about it. This is especially true if you have an Indian or Chinese name.
Duke Leto wrote:
5) Always give preference to internal recruiters over 3rd party recruiters. (Sorry 3rd party guys, but it's true.)
If you can actually get in touch with an internal recruiter that will return your calls, then by all means, do so. In all but the smallest companies, that'll never happen.
In larger companies, internal recruiters (or corporate recruiters) only deal with 3rd-party recruiting agencies they trust to get them pre-qualified, pre-screened people. Actually talking to people would mean they would have to take the time to screen themselves, which they're either incapable of doing or don't have the time for. Hell, there's plenty of times where corporate recruiters will pass people our way to screen for their jobs, and give back to them. It's just how these things work with larger companies.
However, you should find out how close a 3rd-party recruiter is to the end-client. If you find out you are going to be passed through a few layers before actually getting to the end-client, don't even bother. You'll end up getting ripped off (each of those layers are going to demand a fee, which will come out of your pocket), and there's a much higher chance for something to mess up along the way.
Only work with recruiters who are at most 2 layers away from the end-client. I'd say 1 layer, but there are times where the end-client has things set up where only a very small number of agencies can work with them, but they allow one additional layer of agencies beyond that. Meryll Lynch has rules like that, we're technically not on that top layer of agencies, but place around 20-30 people there every year. We work directly with many managers and HR, but then just have to pass the people we place through another company at the end.
Try to find out how close a recruiter is to the hiring manager, and don't get scarred off if it's a good relationship with HR. In some companies, there are actually good HR people who move the process along very well, but still require everything to pass through them. Ask how long the recruiter has worked with this manager, this company, how many people they have placed there, etc. You'll have a pretty good idea of your chances.
And hey, even if it's a new manager or new client, don't rule things out completely. Ask what the rules are for submittals. If being submitted by one company doesn't kill your chances of being submitted by another company at a later date, then you really have very little to lose by giving a company a chance.
Duke Leto wrote:
6) One way to tell a good recruiter from a poor one is to ask them leading questions about the technology they're recruiting for. People who think SQL Server is the only SQL can't intelligently evaluate your qualifications and will have a hard time placing you in the right job.
No, this is a way to tell a very technical recruiter from a not-so-technical one. If I knew as much about SQL as you did, I would be doing your job instead of mine. ;)
I recruit for jobs I know very little about all the time. I do enough research to not sound like an idiot and not be fooled by people throwing out buzzwords, but I don't always know associated technologies, competitors, etc. Granted, your example is pretty basic, and most recruiters will know different SQL technologies, but if not, they could still get you a job very well.
Much of our job is reading personalities, and finding the right fit that way. Many managers don't mind if someone is not extremely strong technically as long as the willingness/ability to learn is there, especially if it's a perm position (ie: not consulting).
And even if we do need someone to be very technical, either we will use a technical screener or the company we are working with will do a quick phone interview first before bringing someone in for an in-person interview to gauge technical ability. So we really don't need to be that technical ourselves.
Duke Leto wrote:
7) Try and get an idea as to the age of the recruiter. if they are 3rd party. A guy or gal who just graduated with a marketing degree is generally NOT someone you want negotiating a job for you. (I don't work with MacArthur Associates as all their recruiters seem to be entry level.)
This is semi-true. Just like you don't want someone on their first day making you sub at Subway, you don't want someone brand-new at recruiting either. After a year or 2, though, it's pretty much all the same. So as long as the person sounds competent, don't worry too much about age.
Duke Leto wrote:
1) NEVER walk into a contract knowing nothing about a company but what the recruiter tells you, especially if you do not have a preceding relationship with that recruiter. It always pays to talk to the hiring manager to learn about the job and impress them with your abilities. If they are looking for any hot body that can code, they probably have a retention problem, which means you don't want to work there either.
I really didn't think any companies did this anymore, but very good advice here. Make sure to interview, and even if they want to hire you over the phone, ask to at least come in and get a tour of the place and meet the people you will be working with.
Duke Leto wrote:
Interviews:
1) If you get the chance to take a competency test either when you meet the 3rd party or the interview with the hiring manager, do so. If you're good, it helps your chances. (And there are a lot of people out there who aren't any good, trust me.)
2) Something I like to do is ask for an example of a piece of code they are having problems with, and then make on the spot recommendations for improving or fixing it. Recode it on the spot if you can. This gives them immediate value, shows what you can do and makes you stand out.
Anything like this to help you stand out is wonderful, as long as you can pull it off.
Duke Leto wrote:
Further Education/Certification:
1) Never pay for a class out of pocket, if an employer isn't willing to sponsor it, it isn't worth taking.
2) Only take certifications offered by companies that make the technology. Microsoft/Oracle etc., except maybe A+ if you are so inclined.
3) Try not to take classes for certifications if you can help it. Books are cheaper, although still too expensive.
4) Never trust Microsoft to provide accurate study material for its own exams.
Yup, listen to all that. Well, other than #1. If a company puts in writing that they'll reimburse you, then you can trust that pretty well. Many companies want some protection against people cut-and-running, and most aren't trying to rip you off. Just make sure it's in writing.