Training half of martial arts bugs me.

[Gerry Seymour]

We're not going to play the blame game here. But if we were.... if we were... I'd blame @Buka.

Did I win?

Yes. Yes, you did.

 

[drop bear]

Yeah, except that you want to blame someone for folks simply not being interested in something. Not everyone has your (or my) priorities. That's not the fault of the instructor, not the instructor's responsibility. These are adults.

It's the students fault?

 

[drop bear]

Again, you're trying really hard to argue on this.

Not that hard. It was pretty obvious.

 

[drop bear]

That's pretty much what I was getting at.

No we are saying different things.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's the students fault?

Again with the fault? Is it also their “fault” they don’t want to study more advanced mathematics in college? Or drive a given brand of car?

Not everyone wants what you want.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No we are saying different things.

Not sure where you get that. Your last post was pretty much my point.

 

[dvcochran]

Hiring is inherently subjective. But you have to have an objective process.

Something that is quite hard to do when there is human intervention involved. I did read several areas that could easily be lost to subjectivity. Some even sounded like to 'open' process was not.

 

[dvcochran]

I'm happy to fill in the gaps, but will just say for now that there is a meaningful difference in postings like this between being technically qualified (which might mean being referred by the HR folks to the selecting official) and being actually qualified. Being actually qualified is all of the criteria used by the selecting offiical to winnow down the list to a few highly qualified candidates, and then eventually select someone for the position. That process, in any government position, has to be very concrete and objective. As such, the preferences aren't just preferences. That's all insight into how the selecting official is going to justify their selection if they end up being sued (e.g., an eeo suit).

So, if you have two candidates who are both "qualified" and the selection starts to get squishy, you will be able to say, I chose this person over that person for these reasons. And they can't say they were passed over because they are a member of a protected base.

That might be more than you ever wanted to know, but I think it's important to know that "preferences" aren't as subjective as the term implies. It's actually quite the opposite. So, to sum up, being technically qualified might mean making a referral list. But it doesn't mean you have any chance of being selected, or that you are considered to be qualified in a practical sense.

Sorry if posting that confused the issue. I realize now that I interpret those in a way that others may not, having a lot of experience being on both sides of those types of vacancies.

You do not know this but my wife is an attorney dealing mainly in state government matters and my sister is an attorney who retired from the IRS and now works for a large law firm in contract law. I have hired 100's of engineers and techs over the years. Both my wife and sister has helped me write and understand language for several reasons including hiring/firing.
The job listed in your post is laced with legalese. It is written in 'plain' speak but the purpose is the same. Which speaks to part of what you are saying. There are 'outs' written into every official document.
What you are calling technically qualified vs. actually qualified is clearly stated on the document. To a large degree 'actually qualified' in your example is part of the subjectivity.
There has to be a vehicle to thin out the applicants. The first several lines of the job description does that very clearly.
HR is not a black and white entity. There is a Lot of psychological process that goes into hiring especially at the salaried level, not so much at the hourly level.
So the job description screens out several people by a simple set of yes/no demands. Obvious quirks, business fit, and background are screened out at the HR level. No matter what the job description says there is subjectivity on both sides of the official interviewing process. There is no telling how many engineers I passed on who were more than capable of doing the work but I felt did not fit our culture for various reasons. So there is a good chance I missed on some people who would have turned out to be great employees and I have hired some people who ended up not fitting at all.
There is no crystal ball and hiring someone is not a legally binding document in Will to Hire states.
I have never had a hiring/firing or employment claim. I strongly believe it has a Ton to do with being open, honest, and up front throughout all processes, screening, interview, hiring and firing. I have never fired someone who did not know it was coming for specific reasons and from several specific explanations of deficiency including attempts to correct the issue(s). I have never hired someone from just the listed requirements on a job description. We have a fun hiring process that tests both the applicants technical skills and gauges their mental/emotional capacity and general personality. If ran concurrent (which never happens) it is a 3-4 partial days process.

 

[dvcochran]

It's the students fault?

A large % of it is on the student, yes.

 

[Steve]

Again with the fault? Is it also their “fault” they don’t want to study more advanced mathematics in college? Or drive a given brand of car?

Not everyone wants what you want.

just so I'm clear, if you're in an algebra class learning algebra from someone competent to teach algebra, all is well. If you're in a geometry class learning algebra from someone who is telling you it’s also calculus, there is a problem. Particularly if the instructor doesn’t know it’s not calculus.

You do not know this but my wife is an attorney dealing mainly in state government matters and my sister is an attorney who retired from the IRS and now works for a large law firm in contract law. I have hired 100's of engineers and techs over the years. Both my wife and sister has helped me write and understand language for several reasons including hiring/firing.
The job listed in your post is laced with legalese. It is written in 'plain' speak but the purpose is the same. Which speaks to part of what you are saying. There are 'outs' written into every official document.
What you are calling technically qualified vs. actually qualified is clearly stated on the document. To a large degree 'actually qualified' in your example is part of the subjectivity.
There has to be a vehicle to thin out the applicants. The first several lines of the job description does that very clearly.
HR is not a black and white entity. There is a Lot of psychological process that goes into hiring especially at the salaried level, not so much at the hourly level.
So the job description screens out several people by a simple set of yes/no demands. Obvious quirks, business fit, and background are screened out at the HR level. No matter what the job description says there is subjectivity on both sides of the official interviewing process. There is no telling how many engineers I passed on who were more than capable of doing the work but I felt did not fit our culture for various reasons. So there is a good chance I missed on some people who would have turned out to be great employees and I have hired some people who ended up not fitting at all.
There is no crystal ball and hiring someone is not a legally binding document in Will to Hire states.
I have never had a hiring/firing or employment claim. I strongly believe it has a Ton to do with being open, honest, and up front throughout all processes, screening, interview, hiring and firing. I have never fired someone who did not know it was coming for specific reasons and from several specific explanations of deficiency including attempts to correct the issue(s). I have never hired someone from just the listed requirements on a job description. We have a fun hiring process that tests both the applicants technical skills and gauges their mental/emotional capacity and general personality. If ran concurrent (which never happens) it is a 3-4 partial days process.

Agree with all of this, but I honestly can’t tell if you intend to agree with me or not from this post.

You make a lot of great points on the hiring process. I regret derailing the thread with It. It’s an interesting topic, but I think it’s spinning us off track.

 

[Steve]

A large % of it is on the student, yes.

If the student thinks he or she is learning self defense skills from someone who has no experience, that’s the student’s fault? If the student isn’t interested in self defense, great. Say you buy a house, and the guy says it has a basketball hoop in the driveway. The basketball hoop may not be a priority to you, and probably isn’t the reason you bought the house. But there should be a hoop in the driveway. And if there isn’t, that’s not on the consumer.

Martial arts is a business transaction. You’re selling a service. If you sign up for 30/10 Weight Loss, do everything you’re asked, and gain weight, that’s not on you. And if no one loses weight, that’s a real problem.

Similarly, If you sign up for self defense classes and learn something else, the business is at fault. If no one is really developing self defense skills, that’s a real problem.

 

[Buka]

Here's a question, and I have no idea what the answer is. Do all of the instructors at a police academy have experience working as cops? Or, said the other way, are there any instructors at a typical police academy who have never applied the skills they're teaching professionally?

I can't speak for everywhere, and I'm not sure what "typical" is as academies can be quite different,
but, unfortunately, I've seen people that fall into that category, yes.

 

[Steve]

I can't speak for everywhere, and I'm not sure what "typical" is as academies can be quite different,
but, unfortunately, I've seen people that fall into that category, yes.

Yeah, that is unfortunate.

 

[Buka]

Yeah, that is unfortunate.

I could tell you horror stories.

And a couple that were rather funny.

 

[drop bear]

Not sure where you get that. Your last post was pretty much my point.

Yes but it doesn't include the bit that makes it a different point.

That is why I did the whole thing with the brackets.

 

[drop bear]

Again with the fault? Is it also their “fault” they don’t want to study more advanced mathematics in college? Or drive a given brand of car?

Not everyone wants what you want.

It is what you want though. Which is the difference. If you have decided that a certain method is important for your students development you really should make a push for that.

If you remember that rob grufridda interview he comes up with this idea that learning a skill requires effort or adversity. Especially learning a fighting skill like self defense.

Otherwise they are not learning that skill.

I put it to you that there was no competition for your students to compete in.

There was no foreseeable pathway that would have led them to this competition.

There are many steps you could have taken before you threw your hands up in the air and said it was the students.

 

[drop bear]

A large % of it is on the student, yes.

This percentage is 100% though.

 

[drop bear]

I can't speak for everywhere, and I'm not sure what "typical" is as academies can be quite different,
but, unfortunately, I've seen people that fall into that category, yes.

I could tell you horror stories.

And a couple that were rather funny.

Yeah security is the same.

It is very messy.

 

[dvcochran]

If the student thinks he or she is learning self defense skills from someone who has no experience, that’s the student’s fault? If the student isn’t interested in self defense, great. Say you buy a house, and the guy says it has a basketball hoop in the driveway. The basketball hoop may not be a priority to you, and probably isn’t the reason you bought the house. But there should be a hoop in the driveway. And if there isn’t, that’s not on the consumer.

Martial arts is a business transaction. You’re selling a service. If you sign up for 30/10 Weight Loss, do everything you’re asked, and gain weight, that’s not on you. And if no one loses weight, that’s a real problem.

Similarly, If you sign up for self defense classes and learn something else, the business is at fault. If no one is really developing self defense skills, that’s a real problem.

So it is the businesses responsibility to inform the student, Before they ever go to a class, what/how/when/why the class is about? It is the student/persons job to be informed and know to a reasonable degree what they are buying. Otherwise they are just being gullible and foolish. It is not unusual for a person to have to try a class/product for a time to learn whether it is what they were looking for.

 

[dvcochran]

I can't speak for everywhere, and I'm not sure what "typical" is as academies can be quite different,
but, unfortunately, I've seen people that fall into that category, yes.

I remember my PT instructor when I went through the academy. He was one bad axx. Ex marine who got out after 18 years and did a brief stint as a LEO. He taught an ethics class straight out of the book. As far as the physical part of the academy I don't think you could have found any better. I don't think there was any one instructor who could have effectively taught you everything well, especially considering there were about 200 officers per class.