JW,
Now that Allen Iverson has retired (note: signing with the Knicks doesn't count as a comeback), let's take a moment and put his career and inglorious exit in context. I'll start by saying that when future historians tell his story (and I know they will), I hope they include last Saturday's article in The Onion:
Memphis Grizzlies Continue To Insist They Have 5 Players Better Than Allen Iverson.
Has any story, satirical or not, ever captured a situation so perfectly? Take a look at some of its excerpts:
"We're really confident about the decision to put Mike Conley, Zach Randolph, Rudy Gay, O.J. Mayo, and Marc Gasol on the floor instead of Iverson," general manager Chris Wallace said of his starters, who combined have appeared in 10 fewer NBA All-Star games than the former No. 1 draft pick.
"[Marcus Williams has] been coming off the bench and putting up 4.4 points a game. He wowed us when he scored seven the other night."
Funny stuff, right? And yet the fictionalized (sort of) version of Chris Wallace has inadvertently hit upon a key truth. You really are better off playing crappy rookies and young guys, seeing what you've got, and getting a lottery pick than you are winning 41 meaningless games with A.I. and sneaking into the playoffs. Yeah, it's an NBA problem, but it's an Iverson problem, too. He's a ball hog. He's moody and ridiculous. He absolutely could never have won a championship without more help than Kobe had last year. Throw in the fact that his vaguely funny "practice" bit has become one of the all time most annoying pieces of self-referential fluff that ESPN anchors have ever filled air time with and you've got a career that, on balance, has got to be considered a waste.
But that's just me. Where do you rank the guy?
-GM
GM,
While you were writing, ESPN reported that the Knicks have decided not to offer Iverson a contract. GM Donnie Walsh said the decision "has nothing to do with Iverson." I don't see how a decision not to sign a player could have nothing to do with the player. I mean, certainly a 2-9 team would be willing to sign somebody if he were the right fit. The problem is that Allen Iverson isn't the right fit for anyone--not for anyone trying to win a championship, not for anyone trying to build its team into a contender. Not just now, but for his career, he's a remarkably talented athlete whose buckets are more entertaining than just about anyone's. His career field goal percentage of 41 percent is well below league average, as is his listed 6-foot height, which requires that a team's other guard be 6-foot-5 or better. What part of that sounds like a guy who really helps a team?
"He'll never win a championship," I said in 2001 after he won the MVP and took a completely mediocre team to the NBA Finals out of a historically weak Eastern Conference. "Neither will Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter, or Stephon Marbury as long as they're the offensive focal points of their teams." It's just impossible to build teams around these guys. The 2004 Olympics showed us that you can't even win a gold medal with Iverson as your offensive leader.
My team committed two of the three worst trades I've seen in my lifetime--trades that smart fans knew were idiotic the moment they happened. In chronological order, they go:
1. Jason Kidd (to Nets) for Stephon Marbury (to Suns)
2. Shawn Marion (to Heat) for Shaq (to Suns)
3. Chauncey Billups (to Nuggets) for Allen Iverson (to Pistons)
Sure, Iverson could probably beat Billups in a one-on-one game, but everyone knew that Billups was one of the best team players in the game while Iverson destroyed team chemistry. The results were even more lopsided than I expected. Billups actually received some MVP talk while making the Nuggets one of the four best teams in the NBA. Iverson ended up on the bench--complaining--for a team that had been a dynasty and all of a sudden became a lame-duck eighth seed. He winds up in Memphis because no one else was dumb enough to sign him, and he starts complaining again. If the Grizzlies can realize it, maybe the whole league can. It's doubtful that he'll never play again, but it's certain he'll never see significant time in another playoff game. Teams finally know better.
-JW
Friday, November 20, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Homelessness: A Smarter Look at the Last Social Cohort We Haven't Yet Insulted
GM,
Walking through the downtown streets yesterday evening, I was approached by two homeless gentlemen, the first of which--an unkempt white man--successfully drained me of my change. This was an unlucky break for the second guy, although I must say he seemed to be in better shape. It was sprinkling, and he had a windbreaker and an umbrella, plus his attitude was about as dynamic as a sorority girl's the night of a themed social. I truthfully told him I was out of cash, to which he replied, "I know how it is, brother." Then his cell phone rang.
I'm no authority on personal finances, but do homeless people really need cell phones. You're a homeowner, GM, and you don't even have a cell phone! And if homeless people are to buy cell phones, shouldn't they turn them on silent while begging? A guy from New York once told me that many of the beggars there aren't even homeless--that they wake up in their downtown lofts, walk to a busy spot, and make $200-300 tax-free dollars a day before returning home. If that's true, perhaps panhandling should be more highly prioritized when making career choices.
I have mixed views on the homeless. There are stories of triumph, stories of gloom, and stories that flat-out prove the theory that it's mostly the result of laziness. I think the proper outlook is this: There will be losers in any capitalist society, but to be a complete loser in this capitalist society, you have to be pretty damn lazy.
Got any stories for me?
-JW
JW,
I keep waiting for the Obama administration to make a policy announcement that goes something like this: "We need to encourage home sales, we don't like homelessness, and we're totally comfortable printing money that's backed up by nothing. From now on, every homeless person in America gets a free house."
But seriously, I love the homeless! From whom else can you hear stories like "My wife was kidnapped and I'm two bucks short of the ransom" (actually heard), "Today's National Homeless Day and the city is matching all contributions" (actually heard), and "I know I look twenty years older than you, but I'm actually your illegitimate child" (okay, I made that one up)? Without homelessness, my already low self-esteem would be totally shot to hell. After all, I often go days at a time without eating garbage, groveling, or being outside. Why shouldn't my obvious superiority make me feel great?
I wonder, by the way, if that wasn't the mindset of the guy featured in your last link--the guy who started out with $25 and the clothes on his back and worked his way toward an apartment and some modest savings. Sure, he had some philosophical questions about the feasability of the American Dream, but he also wanted the ego boost (not to mention the royalties from his inevitable New York Times bestseller). Yeah, he was interested in an adventure, but the real truth is that feigning homelessness was the best-paying job his bachelors-degreed ass could find.
The deeper truth, of course, is that nothing anyone says or does will ever put an end to homelessness, poverty, racism, income inequality, or the tendency of Americans to make meaningless, guilt-induced gestures. As long as that's the case, I don't mind that your cell-phone carrying buddy is making a profit.
Walking through the downtown streets yesterday evening, I was approached by two homeless gentlemen, the first of which--an unkempt white man--successfully drained me of my change. This was an unlucky break for the second guy, although I must say he seemed to be in better shape. It was sprinkling, and he had a windbreaker and an umbrella, plus his attitude was about as dynamic as a sorority girl's the night of a themed social. I truthfully told him I was out of cash, to which he replied, "I know how it is, brother." Then his cell phone rang.
I'm no authority on personal finances, but do homeless people really need cell phones. You're a homeowner, GM, and you don't even have a cell phone! And if homeless people are to buy cell phones, shouldn't they turn them on silent while begging? A guy from New York once told me that many of the beggars there aren't even homeless--that they wake up in their downtown lofts, walk to a busy spot, and make $200-300 tax-free dollars a day before returning home. If that's true, perhaps panhandling should be more highly prioritized when making career choices.
I have mixed views on the homeless. There are stories of triumph, stories of gloom, and stories that flat-out prove the theory that it's mostly the result of laziness. I think the proper outlook is this: There will be losers in any capitalist society, but to be a complete loser in this capitalist society, you have to be pretty damn lazy.
Got any stories for me?
-JW
JW,
I keep waiting for the Obama administration to make a policy announcement that goes something like this: "We need to encourage home sales, we don't like homelessness, and we're totally comfortable printing money that's backed up by nothing. From now on, every homeless person in America gets a free house."
But seriously, I love the homeless! From whom else can you hear stories like "My wife was kidnapped and I'm two bucks short of the ransom" (actually heard), "Today's National Homeless Day and the city is matching all contributions" (actually heard), and "I know I look twenty years older than you, but I'm actually your illegitimate child" (okay, I made that one up)? Without homelessness, my already low self-esteem would be totally shot to hell. After all, I often go days at a time without eating garbage, groveling, or being outside. Why shouldn't my obvious superiority make me feel great?
I wonder, by the way, if that wasn't the mindset of the guy featured in your last link--the guy who started out with $25 and the clothes on his back and worked his way toward an apartment and some modest savings. Sure, he had some philosophical questions about the feasability of the American Dream, but he also wanted the ego boost (not to mention the royalties from his inevitable New York Times bestseller). Yeah, he was interested in an adventure, but the real truth is that feigning homelessness was the best-paying job his bachelors-degreed ass could find.
The deeper truth, of course, is that nothing anyone says or does will ever put an end to homelessness, poverty, racism, income inequality, or the tendency of Americans to make meaningless, guilt-induced gestures. As long as that's the case, I don't mind that your cell-phone carrying buddy is making a profit.
-GM
Monday, November 16, 2009
The Call: An Apology
GM,
I emotionally hedged the Patriots/Colts game last night, and the payout was huge. Huge! After watching my Dolphins try their best to give away a game against the Buccaneers but pull it out in the end, I decided I was willing to pay for a New England loss. I took the Pats +2.5, which is very similar to what I did in the 2007 (2006 season) AFC championship game. And while that historic playoff collapse was perhaps my favorite of all time, it cost me money. Last night's result, a one-point win for Indianapolis, helped my wallet, helped the Dolphins' playoff chances, and gave the media a full week to criticize Bill Belichick's coaching decision. What's funny, though, is that I almost always agree with the evil emperor's 4th-down/clock management; I even agreed with that call--the one to go for it on 4th-and-2 from his own 30 with two minutes left and a six-point lead. I'll admit, though, that his burning of two timeouts prior to that was unjustifiable.
Before we get into that, let's rewind a few hours to the end of the Jets/Jaguars affair. Down a point with just under two minutes to go, Maurice Jones-Drew downed himself at the Jets' 1-yard line when he easily could have scored. First of all, why was it so easy? It was easy because Rex Ryan, who also seems to have a more functional brain than most head coaches, instructed his defense to let the Jags score as quickly as possible. Jones-Drew took the knee (on the advice of RB coach Kennedy Polu if you believe this nonsensical tweet from ESPN's Chris Mortensen) so that his team could kneel the ball three times, exhaust clock and the Jets' timeouts, and kick a game-winning field goal with no time left. It worked perfectly.
ESPN's Tom Jackson was infuriated--with both teams. I'm paraphrasing, but the complaint went something like this: "I wouldn't trust my kicking unit in that situation. When you can score, you score. The Jaguars were behind in the game, and when you're behind, you shouldn't get all cute with your strategy. I'm even more irritated with the Jets for trying to let them score a touchdown. Anything can happen if you play defense."
Well, Tom, welcome to 2009. In fact, welcome to math. Which is more likely: a 20-yard field goal going wrong or a two-minute drill resulting in a touchdown? Both coaches knew that it was the latter, so both coaches played accordingly. In late-game situations, you should never do what your opponents' smart fans want you to do. And of course, if I were a Jets fan, I would have been screaming, "Score now!" at the television.
If I were a Colts fan, I would have been thinking: "Perfect. Punt it to us with two minutes left. We'll start from our own 25, and Peyton will march down the field and score with no time left for Brady." Belichick didn't trust his defense--and with good reason. I still love the fact that all the analysts will kill Belichick for this. Sure, he's the only current NFL coach with three rings and endless job security, and he's the only one who would have made that decision. But if you think Tom Jackson was mad before...
-JW
JW,
You stole my thunder. Yes, Belichick made the right call, and yes, he'll be killed for it. As I've argued before, giving Peyton Manning more than fifteen seconds to gyrate, squeal, and rinky-dink his way down the field is a recipe for disaster, be it eighty yards or eighteen. The fact of the matter is that the Pats weren't winning that game unless they converted the fourth down, and their inability to challenge the play was just bad luck.
What I fail to understand is why New England didn't employ the aforementioned New York Jets strategy after turning the ball over on downs. Look at the play-by-play again. From 1st and 10 at their own 14, the Pats allowed Joseph Addai to run all the way to the one yard line before inexplicably tackling him. On 1st and Goal from the 1, they tackled him again. Let him score on either of those and you've got a chance. Stop him and you've got none. I'm so impressed by Manning at this point (damn him), I can't help wondering if that run from the 1 was mere strategy. It was Joseph Addai, after all, and now that Larry Johnson has retired, no back in the league gives you a better chance at no gain. Short yardage to Wayne is pretty much automatic, so why not intentionally waste a down?
Looking back, I think I'll remember my certainty more than anything. Down two touchdowns with four minutes to play, I knew for a fact that Indianapolis was winning that game. The last time I felt that way about them was during the 2006 season. We should probably be expecting the same result.
-GM
I emotionally hedged the Patriots/Colts game last night, and the payout was huge. Huge! After watching my Dolphins try their best to give away a game against the Buccaneers but pull it out in the end, I decided I was willing to pay for a New England loss. I took the Pats +2.5, which is very similar to what I did in the 2007 (2006 season) AFC championship game. And while that historic playoff collapse was perhaps my favorite of all time, it cost me money. Last night's result, a one-point win for Indianapolis, helped my wallet, helped the Dolphins' playoff chances, and gave the media a full week to criticize Bill Belichick's coaching decision. What's funny, though, is that I almost always agree with the evil emperor's 4th-down/clock management; I even agreed with that call--the one to go for it on 4th-and-2 from his own 30 with two minutes left and a six-point lead. I'll admit, though, that his burning of two timeouts prior to that was unjustifiable.
Before we get into that, let's rewind a few hours to the end of the Jets/Jaguars affair. Down a point with just under two minutes to go, Maurice Jones-Drew downed himself at the Jets' 1-yard line when he easily could have scored. First of all, why was it so easy? It was easy because Rex Ryan, who also seems to have a more functional brain than most head coaches, instructed his defense to let the Jags score as quickly as possible. Jones-Drew took the knee (on the advice of RB coach Kennedy Polu if you believe this nonsensical tweet from ESPN's Chris Mortensen) so that his team could kneel the ball three times, exhaust clock and the Jets' timeouts, and kick a game-winning field goal with no time left. It worked perfectly.
ESPN's Tom Jackson was infuriated--with both teams. I'm paraphrasing, but the complaint went something like this: "I wouldn't trust my kicking unit in that situation. When you can score, you score. The Jaguars were behind in the game, and when you're behind, you shouldn't get all cute with your strategy. I'm even more irritated with the Jets for trying to let them score a touchdown. Anything can happen if you play defense."
Well, Tom, welcome to 2009. In fact, welcome to math. Which is more likely: a 20-yard field goal going wrong or a two-minute drill resulting in a touchdown? Both coaches knew that it was the latter, so both coaches played accordingly. In late-game situations, you should never do what your opponents' smart fans want you to do. And of course, if I were a Jets fan, I would have been screaming, "Score now!" at the television.
If I were a Colts fan, I would have been thinking: "Perfect. Punt it to us with two minutes left. We'll start from our own 25, and Peyton will march down the field and score with no time left for Brady." Belichick didn't trust his defense--and with good reason. I still love the fact that all the analysts will kill Belichick for this. Sure, he's the only current NFL coach with three rings and endless job security, and he's the only one who would have made that decision. But if you think Tom Jackson was mad before...
-JW
JW,
You stole my thunder. Yes, Belichick made the right call, and yes, he'll be killed for it. As I've argued before, giving Peyton Manning more than fifteen seconds to gyrate, squeal, and rinky-dink his way down the field is a recipe for disaster, be it eighty yards or eighteen. The fact of the matter is that the Pats weren't winning that game unless they converted the fourth down, and their inability to challenge the play was just bad luck.
What I fail to understand is why New England didn't employ the aforementioned New York Jets strategy after turning the ball over on downs. Look at the play-by-play again. From 1st and 10 at their own 14, the Pats allowed Joseph Addai to run all the way to the one yard line before inexplicably tackling him. On 1st and Goal from the 1, they tackled him again. Let him score on either of those and you've got a chance. Stop him and you've got none. I'm so impressed by Manning at this point (damn him), I can't help wondering if that run from the 1 was mere strategy. It was Joseph Addai, after all, and now that Larry Johnson has retired, no back in the league gives you a better chance at no gain. Short yardage to Wayne is pretty much automatic, so why not intentionally waste a down?
Looking back, I think I'll remember my certainty more than anything. Down two touchdowns with four minutes to play, I knew for a fact that Indianapolis was winning that game. The last time I felt that way about them was during the 2006 season. We should probably be expecting the same result.
-GM
Friday, November 13, 2009
I Wanted the NFL. I WENT to the NFL. And the NFL Sucked.
JW,
Last night, those of us (un)lucky enough to get the NFL Network witnessed one of the all-time lousy performances by a quarterback. Five interceptions, zero touchdowns, seventeen completely unwarranted sneers and sniffles, and one entirely avoidable loss. Cutler's play was so bad that I considered the alternate titles "Cutler: An Evisceration" and "Cutler: Stop Throwing Picks, You Weak-Chinned Bitch" before settling on what you just read. And while I'm sure that the coming weeks will give us some tempting lines, I'm ready to declare that I will never, ever wager on #6 again.
The really perverse thing, when you think about it, is that the general level of excitement for Chicago's season as recently as two months ago was notably higher than it was for Denver's. Kyle Orton was a career backup--a guy who couldn't take Rex Grossman's job, for heaven's sake--and Cutler was the Pro Bowler ready to break out on a team that wanted him. (A side note: Enough with the Cutler Pro Bowl thing. Not since Zack, Slater, and Screech spent an eight-episode arc in Maui has so much been made over one trip to Hawaii.) Now? Orton's the ultimate game manager and the guy who helped bring Brandon Marshall back into the fold. Denver wouldn't trade Orton back to Chicago for a deal twice as good as the original, and Cutler's heading for numbers that would get Jake Delhomme benched. (According to Wikipedia, Cutler does volunteer work with mentally challenged young people. And copies their throwing motions, apparently.)
Strangely enough, though, I found myself believing that Cutler would pull off the win last night even while knowing everything I just wrote. When he marched the Bears down the field at the end of the fourth quarter (Perhaps "marched" is the wrong word--we haven't seen a two-minute drill this ugly since the last time JaMarcus Russell went three-and-out against his practice squad), I allowed myself to hope that he'd make a miracle happen. I was actually a bit surprised when he threw that final pick.
JW, I'm going out on a limb and guessing you didn't watch this disaster of a football game. Any sports related idiocy you'd like to talk about?
-GM
GM,
Honestly, no.
I have, however, recently come across some information that completely shook the foundation of my mentality! (It surprised me.)
1. The Colts' coach is black?! I was sure it was this guy! I remember some ESPN guys talking about how they had been planning on promoting him as soon as Dungy retired, and I've seen that guy (offensive coordinator Tom Moore) on the sidelines many times. Turns out it's Jim Caldwell who's the head man in Indy--well, behind Peyton, of course.
2. Adam Morrison plays for the Lakers?! OK, it didn't surprise me that the Bobcats wanted to get rid of this schmohawk, but why would the Lakers sign him?! He's a 37-percent career shooter whose only strength is shooting!
3. Twenty-year-old Corey Zickefoose said that the three Tennessee football players who allegedly (shouldn't he know?) held him at gunpoint should remain on the football team and that he has no plans to press charges. He's such a UT fan that he only wants what's best for the team! I don't want to insult a recently traumatized die-hard fan, but he should revisit his list of priorities.
4. Lou Holtz's entire gimmick (assuming it's not having distracting dentures) is being the biggest homer on the planet. He picked his two former teams (Notre Dame and South Carolina) to upset No. 12 Pittsburgh and No. 1 Florida this weekend. What's the point of even watching the ESPN "experts" predict if they're going to be like that?
-JW
Last night, those of us (un)lucky enough to get the NFL Network witnessed one of the all-time lousy performances by a quarterback. Five interceptions, zero touchdowns, seventeen completely unwarranted sneers and sniffles, and one entirely avoidable loss. Cutler's play was so bad that I considered the alternate titles "Cutler: An Evisceration" and "Cutler: Stop Throwing Picks, You Weak-Chinned Bitch" before settling on what you just read. And while I'm sure that the coming weeks will give us some tempting lines, I'm ready to declare that I will never, ever wager on #6 again.
The really perverse thing, when you think about it, is that the general level of excitement for Chicago's season as recently as two months ago was notably higher than it was for Denver's. Kyle Orton was a career backup--a guy who couldn't take Rex Grossman's job, for heaven's sake--and Cutler was the Pro Bowler ready to break out on a team that wanted him. (A side note: Enough with the Cutler Pro Bowl thing. Not since Zack, Slater, and Screech spent an eight-episode arc in Maui has so much been made over one trip to Hawaii.) Now? Orton's the ultimate game manager and the guy who helped bring Brandon Marshall back into the fold. Denver wouldn't trade Orton back to Chicago for a deal twice as good as the original, and Cutler's heading for numbers that would get Jake Delhomme benched. (According to Wikipedia, Cutler does volunteer work with mentally challenged young people. And copies their throwing motions, apparently.)
Strangely enough, though, I found myself believing that Cutler would pull off the win last night even while knowing everything I just wrote. When he marched the Bears down the field at the end of the fourth quarter (Perhaps "marched" is the wrong word--we haven't seen a two-minute drill this ugly since the last time JaMarcus Russell went three-and-out against his practice squad), I allowed myself to hope that he'd make a miracle happen. I was actually a bit surprised when he threw that final pick.
JW, I'm going out on a limb and guessing you didn't watch this disaster of a football game. Any sports related idiocy you'd like to talk about?
-GM
GM,
Honestly, no.
I have, however, recently come across some information that completely shook the foundation of my mentality! (It surprised me.)
1. The Colts' coach is black?! I was sure it was this guy! I remember some ESPN guys talking about how they had been planning on promoting him as soon as Dungy retired, and I've seen that guy (offensive coordinator Tom Moore) on the sidelines many times. Turns out it's Jim Caldwell who's the head man in Indy--well, behind Peyton, of course.
2. Adam Morrison plays for the Lakers?! OK, it didn't surprise me that the Bobcats wanted to get rid of this schmohawk, but why would the Lakers sign him?! He's a 37-percent career shooter whose only strength is shooting!
3. Twenty-year-old Corey Zickefoose said that the three Tennessee football players who allegedly (shouldn't he know?) held him at gunpoint should remain on the football team and that he has no plans to press charges. He's such a UT fan that he only wants what's best for the team! I don't want to insult a recently traumatized die-hard fan, but he should revisit his list of priorities.
4. Lou Holtz's entire gimmick (assuming it's not having distracting dentures) is being the biggest homer on the planet. He picked his two former teams (Notre Dame and South Carolina) to upset No. 12 Pittsburgh and No. 1 Florida this weekend. What's the point of even watching the ESPN "experts" predict if they're going to be like that?
-JW
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Some Tricky Questions
GM,
I just answered 230 questions from a personality survey that was required just to apply for a job I won’t get. You know the type. It's one of those that makes about eight statements in 30 different ways and asks you to rate your level of agreement from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” Just so the outside world can know the reason for my fleeting sanity, I’ve copied and pasted some of my favorites from the survey. Notice the numbers next to each, which represents the order in which I was asked them.
The Annoying:
213. Business decisions must be based on the assessment of facts.
215. The assessment of facts must serve as the basis for business decisions.
The Streaky Annoying:
128. In almost all situations, proven processes should not be changed.
129. It is important to experiment with new ideas in the workplace.
130. I adapt quickly to changing work situations.
131. Coworkers would describe me as someone who prefers a frequently changing work environment.
132. I have always adapted fairly easily to changes at work.
133. I adapt quickly to new work environments.
The "We don't mind insulting your intelligence" Annoying:
180. I like to see other people get ahead in the workplace.
211. I like to see other people succeed in the workplace.
The "There is no God" Annoying:
205. I feel hurt when I receive criticisms of my performance.
206. I am hurt by criticisms of my performance.
If this company actually hires me, nothing will stop me from completely wasting two hours in the first week--perhaps to blog. I want my survey time back.
-JW
JW,As a member of a field (higher education) whose job-seeker to job ratio engenders emotions that can best be described as "Kafka-esque," I sympathize with your troubles. Clearly, someone in HR is having a laugh at your expense right now, and if that joker is reading this blog, let me join the long line of people who undoubtedly hope that he'll go f--k himself. 230 questions? For every applicant? Are they trying to weed out anyone who isn't desperate?
Actually, that's exactly what they're trying to do, if my thinking is correct. We've all taken these tests, after all, but no one's ever heard the psychological validation for this kind of thing. I'm not even sure what they're looking for. Consistency? Inconsistency? The ability to finish the test while all of your instincts are shouting "stop"? And what would happen if an applicant took careful notes and managed perfect consistency, on the molecular level? While that sounds impressive, I'd be hesitant to hire someone so unphased by subtlety. What a drag around the office!
The underlying issue, of course, is that in a job market this bad, employers have way too much power to nitpick. I've been to lots of businesses, and I've interacted with several corporations, and I'm here to tell you that whatever skill this test supposedly measures is not one that is possessed by the average person in corporate America. (Don't get me started on the people to whom we outsource jobs. Yikes.)
The point is, if you don't like this test, just wait awhile. In fifty years or so, you'll be giving it out to people who want to hire you. That'll be the day.
-GM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
