should bankers be forced to pay back there bonus.

[Zod]

Digga said:

Vesuvius 996 said:

thekirbyfake said:

plasticpig said:

There are plenty of ways of reducing a pile of CV's. Randomly disposing of half of them although not scientific always helps.

David Brent said:

I throw away half of the CVs. The reason? I don't employ unlucky people

Generally out of 100 CVs received, 50 have a spelling mistake in them. Bin. Several have coloured paper or crazy fonts. Bin. Several have stupid things in like "Achievements : 50m swimming badge". Bin.

Generally about 10 survive to be read in detail.


Plain white paper. Plain font. End of story.

Unless you're in the public sector, in which case you have to have 100% justifiable and 'PC' grounds to dismiss all applicants. I have a friend who is a surgeon whose only 'realistic' means of pairing down the huge numbers of CVs he has to review is to 'loose' a few in the post...

No wonder the oublic (I let this one go, as it is clearly a typo, although that would also cause you to fail) sector is so fked up - not only are you unlikely to be fired, you are also unlikely to be rejected in the first instance.

Dear Mr Digga,

Thank you for your application. Unfortunately, we have no suitable vacancies for you.

Yours sincerely,

HR

[Digga]

Zod said:

Digga said:

Vesuvius 996 said:

thekirbyfake said:

plasticpig said:

There are plenty of ways of reducing a pile of CV's. Randomly disposing of half of them although not scientific always helps.

David Brent said:

I throw away half of the CVs. The reason? I don't employ unlucky people

Generally out of 100 CVs received, 50 have a spelling mistake in them. Bin. Several have coloured paper or crazy fonts. Bin. Several have stupid things in like "Achievements : 50m swimming badge". Bin.

Generally about 10 survive to be read in detail.


Plain white paper. Plain font. End of story.

Unless you're in the public sector, in which case you have to have 100% justifiable and 'PC' grounds to dismiss all applicants. I have a friend who is a surgeon whose only 'realistic' means of pairing down the huge numbers of CVs he has to review is to 'loose' a few in the post...

No wonder the oublic (I let this one go, as it is clearly a typo, although that would also cause you to fail) sector is so fked up - not only are you unlikely to be fired, you are also unlikely to be rejected in the first instance.

Dear Mr Digga,

Thank you for your application. Unfortunately, we have no suitable positions for individuals with your abominable writing skills and lack of attention to detail.

You moron,

HR

EFA

[mechsympathy]

Zod said:

Digga said:

pairing

Dear Mr Digga,

Thank you for your application. Unfortunately, we have no suitable vacancies for you.

Yours sincerely,

HR

Trust HR to cross out the wrong i

[caterhamboy]

trimbo said:

thekirbyfake said:

If I'm trying to cut the wheat from the chav it's harder to do so because everybody has a "univerity degree" these days.

The currency's been devalued. That's the only tangible achievement from Labour's drive to bring 'opportunity' to all.

My advice to employers; ignore the academic stuff unless it's from one of the big names.
The interview process has now become the only way to evaluate potential employees.

We hired a junior trader two months ago because he came across really well when we met him. He left school after his GCSEs, by choice, grades were good, but he really wanted to test his skills in the workplace. He's had two years experience before coming to us, he's self motivated, keen to learn, hard working and enthusiastic. His friends have all just started Uni, will be interesting to see how his chosen path compares to his pals' over the coming years.

My advice to 16 - 18 year olds; consider looking for work instead of further education, unless you're an academic high flyer you might be harming your future prospects.

never a truer word spoken, but if you are going to leave school and get in the work place, do it through an apprenticeship where you get to go to college 1 or 2 days a week. I did this when i left school and sure the money is poor for the 1st yr or too, but after that you can keep on learning and the sky really is the limit.

[Vesuvius 996]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Whoah tonks, hold on a moment.....

[Zod]

mechsympathy said:

Zod said:

Digga said:

pairing

Dear Mr Digga,

Thank you for your application. Unfortunately, we have no suitable vacancies for you.

Yours sincerely,

HR

Trust HR to cross out the wrong i

Ah, you noticed my deliberate and subtle dig at HR.

(honest, that's what it really was)

[AstonZagato]

ewenm said:

Vesuvius 996 said:

plasticpig said:

thekirbyfake said:

bobthemonkey said:

On a separate note, can the next Government please please try to regain some parity between A-levels and Degrees. There is no way on this planet that an A-level in chemistry (even its its current state in which it is oppressively reduced to learning colours and some equations), requires the same workload or effort as any of these Willy Wonka A-levels. Equally how can a 2.1 in god-knows-what from some unknown university be equated, at least on paper to a 2.1 in Mathematics from Cambridge. This nonsense devalues the efforts of those who currently, and have previously studied 'proper' subjects with actual utility. Yet again, Comrades Blair and Brown have displayed a fantastic capacity for screwing the country

It's only going to get worse, too.

If you sit a maths GCSE higher paper you only need 51% to get an A. Hardly preparation for the real world is it? Get half of your maths questions wrong, get an A. Get half of your job wrong, get the sack.

A-levels are going the same way and a mate of my dad's is a university admissions man. They get so many A or A* students these days it has become impossile to distiguish one from the other so they have their own exam for the student to sit.

Personally I went for a classic degree (Chemistry), from a good university (Warwick) and got a decent mark (2:1). I get sent CVs from people who got a 1st in Amercian History from Thames Valley University. How on earth am I supposed to know if that's "good" or not?

Would a history degree from a Cambridge college be any different or for that matter a classics degree from Cambridge?

Yes, because any tit can get into Thames Vallet. Cambridge actually vet people and only take the best, so the person with Cambridge degree is likely to have a broad skill set.

Of my 3 friends who did classics at Cambridge, one is a teacher, one a journalist/photographer and one a tax consultant in the City. As far as I understand it, a degree used to show the applicant could work independently, manage their time and apply themselves appropriately to tasks; the subject was less important. Now it seems a degree can no longer tell you that.

I read Classics at Cambridge and blagged my way into a City institution 23 years ago. Even then, I was advised in my first week at Cambridge that "I needed an excuse for a First or a Third [class degree]". What that means is, I needed to build my CV to show that I was not just an academic Wunderkind incapable of relating to anyone who did not speak in iambic pentameters (or a hopeless layabout who beered his way through his grant). I went out and ensured I won a Blue in a major sport and had enough peer-elected student posts that I looked like I had not spent my three years in the Library and could socialise with people. However, I am under no illusions that I would succeed in getting a job now with the CV that I had then. Maths/Physics/Engineering with a second fluent language seems to be the minimum and the trainees I meet are frightening in how prepared they are for interview (and how useless they are when starting).

Now when interviewing, I assume that any university that didn't have a good reputation in my youth is worthless.

[plasticpig]

AstonZagato said:

Now when interviewing, I assume that any university that didn't have a good reputation in my youth is worthless.

But half the universities in existence now werent universities 23 years ago. Also some universities have a very good reputation for one or two courses and are considered dire for others. A blanket "they are all worthless" shows just how prejudiced you are.

[Vesuvius 996]

plasticpig said:

AstonZagato said:

Now when interviewing, I assume that any university that didn't have a good reputation in my youth is worthless.

But half the universities in existence now werent universities 23 years ago. Also some universities have a very good reputation for one or two courses and are considered dire for others. A blanket "they are all worthless" shows just how prejudiced you are.

Problem is that reputations are usually there for a reason.

And these new "universities" are simply the same as they were with a new badge, so as not to upset the parents of the students there.

[sleep envy]

Vesuvius 996 said:

"A bubbly, intelligent articulate woman with a bright personality and who is great with people."

CV speak for overweight, gobby woman who'll chat all day drinking tea with the rest of the team

[juansolo]

J-Skid said:

I have to say that this all the crap on here is getting a bit tiring. Simple facts are that not everyone who works in a bank earns load - as had been said before, 90% of those in the City work damn hard for very ordinary pay indeed.

TFR, I may not be a banker in the city, but I work for a very large bank and earn a very ordinary wage. People like me are very much in the majority when it comes the the cross-section of employees in these organisations.

[pikey]

Vesuvius 996 said:

Several have coloured paper or crazy fonts. Bin.

Sorry, run that one past me again... you've received CVs printed on coloured paper??

Never heard of that before!

I guess if it was emailed instead, it would play a 'Ta-daaaa' noise when opened!

[Vesuvius 996]

pikey said:

Vesuvius 996 said:

Several have coloured paper or crazy fonts. Bin.

Sorry, run that one past me again... you've received CVs printed on coloured paper??

Never heard of that before!

I guess if it was emailed instead, it would play a 'Ta-daaaa' noise when opened!

I think they feel that it makes it "stand out".

In the words of my CEO - "you certainly made an impression, though not necessarily a favourable one."

[alanruss]

caterhamboy said:

in light of everything, should the bankers at any level be made to pay back any bonuses they have had say in the last 5yrs? surely this would create a nice pool of money instead of the tax payer bailing them out. i know a lot will say they have spent it, but i say tough pay it back or face prison. they have all been greedy and it is affecting the man in the street.it's fraud..

Edited by caterhamboy on Tuesday 16th September 13:24

Duh! Do you realise that "city bankers" that get these bonuses are about 1-5% of any firm if that. People imagine that there is some money machine handing it to people for no reason. Alot will have done quite legitimate M&A deals / FX transactions etc. Its credit / risk managers / moody's / S&P / Fed etc who also hepled out to make it this way. Just to imagine some rotund fellow with a bowler hat and cigar chortling away in his Essex mansion while stomping puppies etc doesn't work in the real world.

It ruins your argument right at the start. If you were to say "what bonuses did the Credit Desk and Head of Credit get, and why?" at the banks, you might have a point.

Everyone is slightly guilty. Random house in 1996 £120k - 2006 £350k.. everyone is watching "Property millionaire in a week, no probs get a plumber in". Where do you think all this ridiculous mortagage money came from? Magic? Why is it a bad thing house prices go down?? They would have to HALVE to be anywhere near normal.. or the price the were only a few years ago. I don't mean 20 I mean FIVE years ago!

Have a think...

Ahh.. I saw a retraction.. so not aimed at the OP as much, just people who think this way now really...

Edited by alanruss on Thursday 25th September 17:38

[Zod]

plasticpig said:

AstonZagato said:

Now when interviewing, I assume that any university that didn't have a good reputation in my youth is worthless.

But half the universities in existence now werent universities 23 years ago. Also some universities have a very good reputation for one or two courses and are considered dire for others. A blanket "they are all worthless" shows just how prejudiced you are.

Nope. He's right. A large proportion of the Oxbridge applicants we interview are clueless and the proportion of "clueless" to "having a clue" at an institution begins to increase logarithmically the lower you go down the scale after the initial group of universities. The only significant addition to the old order has been Warwick.

[NoelWatson]

alanruss said:

caterhamboy said:

in light of everything, should the bankers at any level be made to pay back any bonuses they have had say in the last 5yrs? surely this would create a nice pool of money instead of the tax payer bailing them out. i know a lot will say they have spent it, but i say tough pay it back or face prison. they have all been greedy and it is affecting the man in the street.it's fraud..

Edited by caterhamboy on Tuesday 16th September 13:24

Duh! Do you realise that "city bankers" that get these bonuses are about 1-5% of any firm if that. People imagine that there is some money machine handing it to people for no reason. Alot will have done quite legitimate M&A deals / FX transactions etc. Its credit / risk managers / moody's / S&P / Fed etc who also hepled out to make it this way. Just to imagine some rotund fellow with a bowler hat and cigar chortling away in his Essex mansion while stomping puppies etc doesn't work in the real world.

It ruins your argument right at the start. If you were to say "what bonuses did the Credit Desk and Head of Credit get, and why?" at the banks, you might have a point.

Everyone is slightly guilty. Random house in 1996 £120k - 2006 £350k.. everyone is watching "Property millionaire in a week, no probs get a plumber in". Where do you think all this ridiculous mortagage money came from? Magic? Why is it a bad thing house prices go down?? They would have to HALVE to be anywhere near normal.. or the price the were only a few years ago. I don't mean 20 I mean FIVE years ago!

Have a think...

Ahh.. I saw a retraction.. so not aimed at the OP as much, just people who think this way now really...

Edited by alanruss on Thursday 25th September 17:38

"It ruins your argument right at the start. If you were to say "what bonuses did the Credit Desk and Head of Credit get, and why?" at the banks, you might have a point. "

I think you would have to more specific than that.

[Murcielago_Boy]

- The taxpayer is not bailing out the city.
- The taxpayer is baling out the taxpayer. (as our economy can never be seperate from the financial system)
- As a result of the the taxpayers own largesse over the last few years.

- The city just lent us the money we all wanted.

Bankers should be forced to pay back NOTHING. They didn't shove money down our throat and force society to live beyond it's means.


P.S. And I don't work in City either.

Edited by Murcielago_Boy on Thursday 25th September 18:26

Edited by Murcielago_Boy on Thursday 25th September 18:26

[Double R]

"It was the head of HSBC I think who said that the bonus structure encouraged short-termism and unnecessary risk taking. Seems he was right."

That was (and is) a wonderful excuse not to pay good bonuses

[joscal]

Just thought I would bring this up again...how things have moved on. Are the city types still whiter than white????

[FarleyRusk]

joscal said:

Just thought I would bring this up again...how things have moved on. Are the city types still whiter than white????

I am, thanks for asking.
Bonus was 10% down on last year but still okay