From: msm@mse.cmu.edu (Mark S McWhinney)
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc
Subject: Re: they really want SALARY HISTORY
Date: 5 Nov 92 06:35:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bx8CyH.5tn.2
Organization: CMU/SEI Master of Software Engineering Program

In article <ATAYLOR.92Nov3105937@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
> In article <BwwJvr.IMu.2@cs.cmu.edu> msm@mse.cmu.edu (Mark S McWhinney) writes:
> 
> <   I believe that the rate of increase in salary is a better indicator
> <   than final salary.  An applicant that has an annualized increase of 8%
> <   is one that has been given merit increases.  An applicant that has an
> <   annualized increase of 5% or less is one that was simply given the
> <   minimal, cost of living adjustment.
> 
> 	What if the applicant worked in 
        [assorted pathological conditions deleted] 

> 	IMHO, salary history does not always indicate
> 	individual ability. 

A few points:

1) Now that I am back in the academic world, I am constantly reminded
   of how little the academic world has little to do with the real
   world.  (IMHO, unless you have had a career in the real world, you
   cannot appreciate just how limited the academics' views are. :-))
   It should surprise no one that salary histories before, during, and
   just after a tour of duty in school have little to do actual worth.

2) best != good.  Many people think that Clinton is the lesser of
   three evils.  That makes him the "best" but not necessarily good.
   When I said the salary history, particularly rate of increase, is
   the best indicator of worth, I did not necessarily mean it is a
   good indicator. 

3) best != always.  See points 1 and 2.  As soon as someone makes a
   generalization, others on the net invariably come up with one or
   two counter examples usually in the form of "oh yeah, well my
   friend Marvin..."  Generalizations are just that...GENERALIZATIONS.
   If you can site 1,000 counter examples, but I can site 100,000
   examples, the generization is still valid.  

   One person just wrote to me with a silly example :-).  He has a BS
   in Math and 21 years of experience as a programmer.  He had just
   finished a "medium-term" job at a university.  I am sure he is a
   bright mathematician, but he has a BS in Math which only qualifies
   him to flip burgers.  He is still a programmer after 21 years.  His
   reference to a medium-term job seems to indicate that he has not
   had a career.  This is way beyond 3 sigma.  His salary history is
   close to meaningless.  (BTW, don't bother me with flames about
   mathematicians and career programmers.  I only made the comments
   for effect.)

4) In an earlier reply to a message from Anatole Wilson, I stated "...
   so give me a better way of measuring [employee worth as related to
   starting salary] that is both objective and meaningful."  Not
   surprisingly, I have received no answers.

5) If people with a NON-TRIVIAL level of experience, say 10 years,
   have an average salary increase of 5% over the 10 years, they have
   just kept up with inflation.  If you argue that they could just be
   victims of their circumstances, then I would have to ask that if
   they are really better than the 5% rate, why did they not find a
   better job?  We all hit bumps and unexpected turns in our career
   paths, but after many years our true worth as employees shows
   through.  Stated another way, random noise obscures our true value
   as shown by our salary rates over the short term, but in the longer
   term the noise is less of a factor and the true value comes out.

6) Often the least capable people have the most unrealist salary
   expectations.  (I am about ready to beat the crap out of the next
   software hacker I come across who thinks that he is too much of a
   hot shot to be bothered with requirements and documentation and
   thinks he should be paided more than his manager.)
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.misc