Advice

I spent a lot of time reviewing resume tips (yes, my own, but also several others). I don’t update my resume very often, but when I do, I always look for advice. In the end, I actually threw away my original resume and completely rewrote it. The basic content was the same, but the style was entirely new (and very heavily influenced by resume articles I read). This took quite a bit of time, but was entirely worth it. The final product was much higher quality than what I started with.

One really important thing I did was have coworkers, professors, and my fiancée read my resume. I got some really good feedback from this. I got a few style pointers, but mostly I got substance advice. My fiancée pushed me to clarify and expand on my leadership experience. My coworkers recommended relevant technologies that I should have included. My academic advisor really pushed me to restructure the resume to make it more appropriate for the industry. In particular, he had me highlight my skills and work experience.

Formatting

Another thing I would wholeheartedly recommend everyone do is to prepare both a formatted (ahem, PDF) and a plaintext resume. I used my formatted resume almost everywhere. However, I did use a plaintext resume for a few places that I knew were going to strip my resume down to plaintext anyway. In general, plaintext resumes are not very pretty, but for places that I know are going to strip away the formatting, I would rather provide a plaintext resume of my own creation. Text extracted from formatted documents is rarely pleasant to read.

I do not, however, recommend using plaintext resumes for most job applications, because they still look like crap. Use them only when you really have to. And despite what Steve Yegge says, you don’t need to submit a plaintext resume to Google. I don’t know why he implies that resumes at Google are stripped of their formatting. I almost submitted a plaintext resume to Google because of his article. I’m glad I didn’t, though, because the first guy who interviewed me showed up with a printout of my resume exactly as I had formatted it.

The Cover Letter

Every resume I sent was with a custom cover letter. Form letters look lazy and half-assed, because that’s what they are. A custom cover letter indicates at least a little actual interest in the job. A generic cover letter screams “bulk mail”, which in turn yells “delete me”.

I also made my cover letters match my resume as closely as possible. Some of the positions that I applied for were via an online form, and the only place to provide a cover letter was a text box. For those, I submitted the cover letter in plaintext. For the rest, I made my cover letters match my resume fonts, margins, etc. I think this attention to detail is important. When printed, the cover letter and resume should look as if they came from the same document. This level of attention to detail may not be strictly necessary, but it definitely won’t hurt, and it really doesn’t take much time. Create a cover letter template and you only have to make it match once.

Oh, and I saved every single cover letter I sent. This allowed me to lift sentences when writing new cover letters, but it also gave me a lot of examples to read when I had trouble thinking of what to say. (And I have them saved for the future as well.) Whenever I had trouble deciding what to put into a new cover letter, I’d re-read the others, and several ideas would pop into my head. A little socket work here, a little C++ work there. Examples are extremely useful for me, even when they are my own.

Once I finished my resume and all those matching cover letters, I started sending them out to interesting positions. I had planned on talking about that more in this post, but the resume chatter got long enough, so I’m pushing that off to next time.

By the way, if you want a lot of other good tips, read the comments on my resume tips article. There were a lot of really good tips (as well as a few really bad tips) from the readers.

My first programming-related job was working as a systems administrator during my senior year of undergrad studies. I did a lot of network and computer maintenance that year, but I also had a chance to put together some custom software. After that, I had a grant as a Master’s student to develop science and math projects for elementary school students. As part of this job, I built a new website and database for the grant and all its associated projects. Most recently, I was developing radar software for a small defense contractor. This was my first full-time job, and also my first software-only job. However, it was not a job in a software-only company, and I’ve decided that’s where I want to be.

I don’t want to work for the software division of some company. I don’t want to work in network administration. I definitely don’t want to be anyone’s “computer guy”. I want to be a part of a dedicated software firm.

No one can truly thrive without continual learning. You learn or you fall behind, regardless of what field you are in. No matter how much you know, no matter how skilled you are, others will eventually surpass you if you don’t strive to stay ahead. I know that there are many things I need to learn about building quality software, and I feel that I am likely to learn some of these things best in a dedicated software company.

In a software company, the focus is on the software (or it should be). That means that there is more attention directed toward software quality, toward software development productivity. It means that a lot of the management grew out of the developer pool, and should know what it takes to build quality software. Most importantly, it means that there’s a wealth of talented and experienced developers to learn from. I want to know how to built large systems. I want to learn how hundreds of programmers can work together. I want to discover how world-class software is grown. Maybe I could learn these things at a non-software company, but it would certainly be harder.

There are a lot of software firms in the world, but I can tell you one place where most of them are not: Mississippi. You can probably guess where I used to live.

Since Mississippi has few software firms, it would be rather difficult for me to find my ideal job there. Besides, neither I nor my fiancée ever planned to live in Mississippi forever. Neither of us were born or raised in Mississippi, and neither of us have any wish to grow old there. We were destined to move eventually.

When my fiancée and I started investigating where we should live, we wanted to restrict our search to places that would have abundant jobs for both of us. She’s a psychologist. Most software companies are headquartered in or near large cities. A luck would have it, most people are also in or near large cities. Since more people imply more opportunities for psychologists, our fields’ job opportunities overlap best in major cities. (Funny how most opportunities seem to be where most people are . . . .)

We ranked some of the best cities for both of us, and three options came out on top: Boston, San Diego, and Silicon Valley. She applied for jobs in those three areas, and we decided we’d go wherever she got an offer. In the end, she received offers in both San Diego and Silicon Valley (specifically Palo Alto). Of those two, Palo Alto appeared to have more of a future for her, as well as more opportunities for me. That pretty much ended the discussion of where we should live. She accepted a position in Palo Alto and I began the process of applying for jobs myself.

So, where does a programmer apply for jobs in Silicon Valley? Lots and lots of places. I’ll talk more about that soon.

The first part will cover the reasons we (my fiancée and myself) chose Silicon Valley, along with the beginning of the job hunt, the resume, etc., depending on how long I let the post get. Some later posts will describe the interview process, offers, salary and benefits negotiation, and relocation. This will take a while, but stay tuned if you’re interested in more information about the process I went through to get a job in Silicon Valley, or if you’re interested in hearing another opinion about Google and Yahoo’s interview process.

A few days ago, Half Sigma posted an article claiming that a career in programming sucks. I responded that no, it doesn’t. In turn, I got quite a few comments supporting Sigma. Several of them were centered around Sigma’s first argument, that programming knowledge becomes obsolete too quickly.

Rapid Obsoletion of Programming Knowledge

In an attempt to prove that programming knowledge has a very short expiration date, it’s easy — and common — to drag out an expired technology (Punchcards, Z80, Turbo Pascal, etc.) and then point at it and say, “Look! Look! How does any of that still apply?”

Quite frankly, if you have to drag out punch cards to make your point, you don’t have one. Punch cards died 30 years ago. If that’s the best you can do, the computer science field must not be moving very quickly at all. The Z80 died in the mid-1980s. Even Turbo Pascal was gone before Windows 95 hit the streets. Each of those technologies had more than a 10-year lifespan before it became obsolete. Is it so unreasonable to tell programmers that they need to learn a new technology at least once every ten years?

Hey, remember when plumbers used to use lead-based solder? Plumbing knowledge is obsoleted so fast!

Just like the basics of soldering are partially independent of any specific solder compound, so are the basics of computer science separate from any specific technology. Punch cards are just a storage medium, like hard disks, so much of the knowledge gained during the punch card era is still relevant. Similarly, a programmer who has good knowledge of the Z80 should be able to map much of his knowledge to modern processors. And a skilled programmer who used Turbo Pascal should still be a skilled programmer in a new language, given a brief acclimation period.

If tomorrow morning we all switch to PowerPC computers, programmed in Python, using some funky crystal matrix for storage, my knowledge will not all be obsolete. Certainly, my knowledge of the more quirky aspects of C++ won’t be useful anymore, but the basics won’t have changed. It’s still a Von Neumann machine. Algorithms are still important. Software design practices are still relevant.

Nothing fundamental really changes very quickly. The superficial stuff evolves rapidly, but if your knowledge is only superficial, that’s a different problem altogether.

The Example Game, from the Other Side

If we want to play the “look at this example” game, I’ll just trot out C and the x86 architecture. Both of those have been around for more than 30 years, and they’re both still going strong. They’ve been around since before I was born, and I still use both every day at work. Likewise, C++ and IPv4 have both been around for more than 20 years, and show no sign of dying soon. Even Java and PostgreSQL have been around for 10 years now.

There are many examples of technologies that have been around for more than a decade. In fact, I challenge anyone to demonstrate a dead technology that was once popular and considered important, which didn’t last for at least ten years. I doubt there are very many examples. I think there’s a minimum lifespan before anything can really even be considered important, if for no other reason than it takes a while before a given technology becomes well-developed enough to be utilized by business.

Knowledge Carry-Over

Even when particular technologies die, they still influence future technologies, and so the knowledge base doesn’t disappear or become useless.

Pick any current technology, and you can trace its roots back toward previous technologies. C# was influenced by Java. Python was influenced by Lisp. Ruby was influenced by Python, Smalltalk, and Perl.

Knowledge of any predecessor technology will spill over to the newer technology. Certainly, not everything remains relevant, but there’s definitely some knowledge carry-over. If you’re skilled with Java, C# is not a huge leap. Things are different, but not completely alien. If you’re comfortable with functional and object-oriented programming, you can pick up Ruby.

What Do Employers Want?

Some commenters argued that employers will only hire programmers who are already skilled in the latest technologies. I agree that’s true for some employers. However, I’d argue that it’s not true for most, shouldn’t be true for any, and won’t be true for the employers good programmers should want to work for.

Would I hire an experienced Clipper/dBASE programmer for work on an Oracle project? Yes. Would I hire a good C++ programmer to work on a C# project? Yes.

Good people are far more valuable than specific knowledge. Any decent programmer can learn the syntax and APIs. If you have demonstrated a strong knowledge of database programming, why wouldn’t your knowledge carry over to Oracle? If you are a good C++ programmer, why wouldn’t you be a good C# programmer? If you cannot move from one language to another, then your knowledge is purely superficial, and you are not a good programmer.

If a potential employer cannot recognize that a good programmer is much more valuable than a mediocre programmer “skilled” in the latest buzzwords, then you don’t want to work there. You will almost certainly not be treated well, because the employer clearly doesn’t understand the value of a good programmer.

If your boss doesn’t want you to learn new technologies, then you’ve got a bad boss. Your boss should want, and expect, you to be constantly learning. What kind of idiot thinks that he’s hiring programmers with all the knowledge they’ll ever need?

Technology Changes

You people complaining about the obsoletion of knowledge sound like luddites. It frankly sounds like you’re afraid of progress, and unwilling to learn new technologies. You picked a fast-moving field. Accept that some of your specific knowledge will be subject to attrition. Knowing, for example, a particular object-oriented language’s syntax is transient knowledge. Understanding how to program using good object-oriented methodologies is not transient.

Expect to learn new technologies. It’s part of the field. Learn them at work, or learn them on your own time. But don’t complain to me that your knowledge of Clipper isn’t useful anymore because the world now uses Oracle. If you didn’t learn anything useful while you were using Clipper that would be applicable to Oracle, then you probably didn’t do anything useful while working with Clipper.

Now, I’m not going to pretend that the computer science field doesn’t have any problems. Certainly it has problems. Life has problems. That’s just the way things are. But pretending that the problems are insurmountable doesn’t help anything. Pretending that technology evolves so fast that no one could possibly keep up long term is just a way of hiding the fact that you aren’t interested in keeping up.

If you want to switch fields because you can’t or won’t keep up with the pace of technology, please do so. If you find something you love, then that’s far better than doing something you don’t care about. And if you find a field where you knowledge base never needs to evolve, let me know. I’ll be sure to pass the news on to others who don’t want to program anymore. I have to say though, I can’t think of a faster way to obsolete all your knowledge than by switching to a different field.

Sigma (as I’ll refer to you throughout this post), you are way off. I’m afraid that your arguments are weak and poorly formed. You’ve made erroneous and biased assertions and based your arguments on those false premises. You clearly don’t like being a programmer, but your personal dislike for the job (or the field) doesn’t make it bad. It just makes it a bad fit for you.

I’m going to address your arguments point-by-point, so readers can more easily refer back to your post for context.

• Temporary nature of knowledge capital

  You argued that because so much of the everyday knowledge in programming is transitory, there’s basically no benefit to hiring an experienced programmer over an unexperienced one (or a programmer with relatively little experience). It’s true that Cobol is effectively dead, and “Significant Cobol Experience” isn’t exactly the best way to headline a resume these days. It’s not true, however, that experience is worthless. The transient parts of programming change: the languages, the tools. But much of programming does not change. Good software engineering practices and concerns have not changed: Encapsulation, clarity, patterns, security, stability. These are all as important today as when they were first conceived.

  The fundamentals do not change. A linked list is still a linked list. Binary searches and hash maps are still faster than linear searches on large data sets. If an experienced programmer can write the code for a linked list, or understand when a linear search is bad (or — gasp — when it’s good), then he’s definitely got something to offer beyond the average recent graduate (who sadly, doesn’t understand pointers or Big-O notation).

  There’s even a great deal of technology retention from the “transient” aspects of programming. I still use Make at work, and it’s been around in various forms since 1977. Some of the languages haven’t changed, either. C is still C. I’ve got the K&R book, and it’s still a good reference. Even newfangled languages like C# inherited a great deal from C. Certainly, there have been massive changes, but variables still have to be declared, and a for loop still looks like a for loop.

  New languages and tools don’t have to leave experienced programmers behind. When Canola oil became popular, all the experienced chefs weren’t suddenly replaced by recent culinary school graduates. Scrambling an egg is about more than just what fat is used. Likewise, CAD didn’t put all the draftsmen and architects out of work. And Java hasn’t put all the C programmers out of work, either. There’s fundamental knowledge in any field that isn’t tied to a particular technology, and experience builds on this fundamental knowledge. If all your knowledge is all tied to a particular programming language, or a particular API, that’s a huge problem, but not because Q# is newer than Y++.

• Low prestige

  Sigma, I don’t know if you expected prestige when you signed up for your computer science degree, but if you did, it’s your fault. Engineering and science disciplines simply do not have the prestige that law and medicine do. This isn’t a problem with computer science any more than it’s a problem with physics. It’s just a fact. If prestige is what you’re after, the sciences are not for you.

  You claim that Ivy League students aren’t majoring in programming. Well, I disagree. You say that what MIT teaches isn’t really programming. Well, I don’t know anyone but you who thinks MIT isn’t churning out real programmers. Yes, MIT is actually teaching the fundamentals of computer science, but I’m unclear how that’s a problem. Even “low-level” work in ASP.NET is benefited by a proper education. If someone can’t understand recursion, then quite frankly, I don’t want them building my e-commerce site, because they’re unlikely to be able to understand basic security, either. (I’m not sure exactly when ASP.NET became considered “low-level”, either.)

  The fact that schools like Devry and the University of Phoenix churn out “programming” degrees doesn’t indicate that programming is low prestige. All it indicates is that programmers are in demand, and the regulations are lax. If Devry could churn out MDs, you better believe that they would.

  Programmers aren’t lacking in prestige. They get the same prestige that anyone else in the sciences does. Civil engineers aren’t treated like lawyers. They get the same basic respect that programmers get. If you don’t think you’re respected at work, then leave. If you think you should be treated better, then find a better job. If you are worth more, then someone will give you more.

• The foreignization of computer programming

  Quite frankly, your blurb about foreignization says more about your own prejudices and fears than it does about any real problem with the industry.

  First off, outsourcing is not a real problem. People have been saying that outsourcing would put everyone out of work since I started college. It still hasn’t happened. Yes, some companies have outsourced IT workers. Those workers found new jobs. (And many of those jobs came back, too.) There are still more jobs to fill than there are programmers to fill them. This is especially the case with good programmers. Bad programmers might get their jobs outsourced and be in trouble. Good programmers can always get other jobs. The really good programmers never even work places that would be dumb enough to outsource the programming jobs.

  As far as bringing in good foreign talent, I’m not sure why that’s a bad thing. You’re being a complete alarmist by claiming that foreign IT workers are taking all the jobs from Americans, and that the domestic market has been nearly abandoned to foreigners. Only someone who’s not good at their job should have to worry about losing it to someone who is good. Bill Gates stated recently that the government issues 65000 H1-B visas each year. Meanwhile, the number of computer science jobs is growing at a rate of 100000 per year. He’s pushing for looser regulations on H1-B visas because there’s still a shortage of good programmers.

  You say that foreignization causes a vicious cycle of low pay when combined with low prestige. This only makes sense if programmers have low prestige, which is not the case. Additionally, Microsoft and other companies pay the same wages to H1-B workers as citizen workers, according to Gates. No one’s bringing in genius programmers and paying them minimum wage.

  I don’t know why you care so much about how “America” views our “industry full of brown people”, either. It may be that the average person thinks less of the profession because many programmers are foreigners. But how is that even relevant? Random Joe on the street doesn’t cut my paycheck, so it doesn’t matter if he thinks less of programmers.

  You also say that Americans have more rights to the money created here than foreigners do. Well, many of the people who’ve helped drive America to be a superpower were, and are, foreign-born. If I hire a programmer, he is helping to create wealth for America. It doesn’t matter if he’s foreign or not.

• Project management sucks too

  Not everyone wants to move into management. It’s also possible to be a highly-paid programmer without moving into management, so your initial premises are invalid.

  Older programmers don’t have to move into management to avoid ending up “underemployed fifty-year-olds, only suitable for lower paying IT jobs like ‘QA’ because they no longer know how to use the latest and supposedly greatest programming tools”. I don’t know why you think experience is worthless, but I really don’t understand why you think it’s impossible for anyone older than 25 to continue to learn. There’s no magical switch that flips when a programmer leaves college that stops him from learning new things. If a programmer is 50 and hasn’t learned anything since he was 25, he probably deserves to be unemployed. He’s clearly not the best asset. If a 50 year old civil engineer had been unwilling to learn anything after college, he wouldn’t be able to use CAD, and he wouldn’t know the latest building codes, and he deservedly would be unemployed.

  You also don’t seem to understand what “management” is if you think it shouldn’t involve planning and status reporting. That’s exactly what management is. The people who hold the purse aren’t managers, they are Directors and Executives. Directors tell managers what to do, and managers manage the day-to-day details. Management isn’t generally glamorous. It’s not a situation unique to programming.

  You also state that we need stronger industry bodies from the computer science profession. On this, I completely agree. The low quality of the average computer science graduate is enough to demonstrate that there are problems within the industry. We need industry bodies to set minimum competency requirements. The barrier to entry should be high, not to rule out foreigners, but to weed out incompetence. I think this needs to grow from the programmers themselves (much as lawyers run the Bar and doctors head medical boards). And I do agree that programmers should not be managed by non-programmers.

• The working conditions suck

  Sadly, there is truth to this. Some places do not appreciate their employees, and therefore do not treat them well. This is not, however, a problem exclusive to programming.

  This is an area where an industry body would help. I think if we had an board which weeded out all the incompetent programmers, there would be less of a problem with poor tools. I think many companies simply cannot tell a good programmer from a bad one. And so they have a mix (mostly bad, a few good). A bad programmer isn’t going to be more productive with two monitors, and I think companies recognize this, and assume they are better off not giving dual monitors to anyone, rather than trying to give them selectively, or wasting the money giving them to everyone.

  Of course, there are many places that do appreciate their programmers, and do whatever is necessary to keep them happy. These are the places that programmers want to work, and these are likewise the places that you will find most of the good programmers employed.

Sigma, for the most part, your arguments don’t reveal any deep problems with the programming profession. They reveal instead serious issues that you seem to have with your choice to be a programmer. Your aversion to learning new technology seems to be a major problem. You chose one of the fastest-evolving fields in modern times, so this is unlikely to change. Programmers need to be lifelong learners. I’m not sure what else to tell you. Lots of people change their professions. It’s not too late for you. Alternatively, you could find a job using a stable technology that you enjoy. Maybe you should find somewhere that will let you use C or C++, both of which are unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

To the readers, pick a field that’s compatible with your own nature. You’ll be much happier. If you find that you’ve chosen the wrong field, change it. It’s just a job. Find something you actually enjoy, even if it means a massive career change. It’s better to be poorly-paid and happy than highly-paid and miserable.

1. Identify your desires.

   Take the time to sit down and decide what it is that you want. Your desire can be short term, as in a beach trip this summer, or long term, as in a millionaire retirement.

   Do you desire Money? A successful relationship? More community involvement? A big screen television? Decide what the things you desire are. If you are unable to identify the things you want desires, you will not acquire them. Identify your desires so that you can obtain them.

2. Visualize what you desire.

   No, I haven’t accepted a sponsorship deal with the producers of The Secret. Visualization isn’t a fix-all, but it is a useful tool. It is, first and foremost, a motivational tool.

   Really think about what you want. Clear any mental distractions away and develop an accurate, clear image of what you desire. Develop this image as fully as possible, because it’s going to guide you.

   Now, hold onto that image. If, and when, you run into frustrations, problems, and barriers, you can call back your visualization. You can recall your image to remind yourself what you are working for. Use your visualization as a source of motivation. Build an image that will motivate you.

3. Set goals and record them.

   You decided what you want in step one, and you established a clear mental image in step two. Now is the time to develop accurate written goals. Find a way to put your desire into words. If you cannot put your vision and your desires into written form, they are not well-formed. Revisit steps one and two.

   Writing down your goals forces you to be more exact about what it is you want, and the record of your goals can provide motivation later. Just as you can return to your mental image when the path becomes hard, you can re-read your goals when you need additional inspiration or personal clarification. Write down your goals to clarify them and provide motivation.

4. Break your goals into achievable pieces.

   This is the single hardest part of goal-setting. It’s easy enough to say you want to retire a millionaire. It’s much more difficult to really set down the steps to reach that goal. The individual pieces should be achievable goals in their own rights.

   If your goal requires saving money, then you need to build a budget, and pursue a higher-income job if necessary. If your goal is to improve your health, set yourself a realistic diet and exercise regimen. If your relationship needs mending, decide what’s wrong with your relationship and set aside the resources and time needed to mend the broken parts. If you are unsure what your goal requires, your goal may need to be specified more exactly.

   If any piece of your goal seems too large, break it down further. Treat each piece as a new goal if necessary, going through these eight steps with the smaller goal. Turn your goals into small steps.

5. Eliminate distractions.

   Eliminate the annoyances that hinder your chances of reaching your goals. If your goal is to lose weight, and you’ve got snacks around the house, throw them away. They are a distraction from your goal. You don’t need them around making your goal more difficult. Make throwing away the snacks your first action.

   If you are trying to reduce your debt, and you have a friend who always wants to eat out at the most expensive restaurants, you need to resolve this. It is a serious obstacle to achieving your goal. You don’t have to eliminate the friend, but you need to eliminate the problem. Tell him that you can’t afford to be eating out so expensively. If he’s really a friend, he’ll understand, and you’ll have a distraction eliminated, either way.

   It’s not always easy to remove distractions. It’s not even always possible. In the cases where it is possible, do it. Do what it takes to eliminate as many distractions as you can. The road to a goal is hard enough without unnecessary blockades. Remove the things which distract you from your goals.

6. Push through problems.

   There will always be problems when trying you reach your goals. Some problems will be big, while others will be bigger. You need to push your way through these problems. You built a strong visualization for a reason. There was a purpose to writing down your goals. When you run into an obstacle that’s more than just a distraction, call up your visualization, re-read your written goals. Use these as fuel to push yourself over, around, or through the obstacle. Problems will arise, but you can overcome them. Remember, your goal is on the other side of that obstacle.

   If you are looking for your dream job, and you’ve already gotten ten rejections, pull your visualization up, and ask yourself, “Is this setback big enough to stop me from reaching my goal, big enough to stop me from getting the job I want, that I deserve?” If you want it, really want it, the answer will be, “Absolutely not.”

   Hold onto the image of what you want, and keep plugging away, striving toward your goal, until you reach it. Remind yourself that even though it’s hard work, it’s going to pay off in spades when you achieve your goal. Push through the obstacles to reach your goal.

7. Work hard toward your goals.

   You don’t just need to work hard. You need to work your ass off. This is the most important step in achieving your goals, and it’s also the most difficult. You can have all the best intentions in the world, but if you don’t put in the work, you will never meet your goals. The likelihood of achieving your goal is directly related to the about of work you put in.

   Find the time and resources to achieve your goals. Push yourself to reach your goals, one step at a time. You are responsible for putting the effort in to achieve your goals. No one else will, or can, put the time in for you.

   If you want to get in shape, you have to diet. You have to keep your dates with the treadmill. No one else can get you into shape. If you want to get out of debt, you have to build a budget, and you have to stick with it. It’s you who has to give up the non-vital expenses, and it’s you who has to live within your means. You have to put in the time, and you have to put in the effort.

   Recall your goals and your visualization. Re-read your written goals. Remember what you are working for when the road seems too long. When you slack off, your goals will move further away, but when you really put the work in, you will see your goals coming closer and closer, until they are finally within your grasp. Work hard and eventually your goals will arrive.

8. Re-evaluate your goals.

   Periodically rethink your goals as you progress. It’s okay to change your goals. Sometimes we outgrow a goal. Other times our goal priorities change. If you find that your initial goals no longer meet your current desires, adjust your goals accordingly. Rethink your vision, rewrite your goals, and adjust the steps as necessary. It’s not important that your goals stay constant, only that you are constantly working toward your goals.

   Likewise, if you find that the steps you are taking are not bringing you closer to your goals, or not bringing you closer as fast as you expected, you should reconsider the steps you chose. It may be that you simply need to be patient and continue to work hard, or it may be that the steps you chose are not optimal. Just as your goals need not be set in stone, the steps to your goals can be pliable. Adjust them where necessary to choose the correct path.

   Nothing is set in stone. You chose your goals, and you may likewise choose to change them. Re-evaluate as needed, and don’t be afraid to change your goals. Remember, your goals should fulfill your desires. If they no longer do that, they need to change. If your goals no longer reflect your desires, adjust your goals.

None of these tips are earth-shattering or new. They are instead quite practical and time-tested. They may not always be easy, but they work. Apply them in your life, and with time and hard work, you can bring your goals within reach.

This “secret” has been kept from you your entire life. World leaders have suppressed it since the dawn of civilization. They have used it, even abused it, while the ignorant masses grind their way through their lives. And if you spend $29.95 on the DVD, the secret will change your life.

So, what’s the secret that’s been suppressed for ages and ages? The Law of Attraction, the idea that you will draw toward you the things that you think about most. Basically, if you concentrate on positives, you’ll attract good fortune, while if you concentrate on your Visa bill, your Mastercard bill will show up, too.

Never mind that The Secret claims it’s been known, used, and taught by everyone from Plato to Einstein. Never mind that it’s been in every new age self-improvement book ever written. And never mind that some of the people in the video have been hawking it to gullible schlubs since well before I was born. It’s a secret, and you need to watch this movie to find out about it.

The Problem with The Secret and the Law of Attraction

I’m all for giving people good advice. Unfortunately, The Secret isn’t giving good advice. The law of attraction isn’t really advice at all. It’s a get-rich-quick scheme, a 30-pounds-in-30-days diet. The law of attraction sells the idea that good thoughts, instead of hard work, will bring good things.

Easy sells. It’s sexy. Losing thirty pounds without dieting sounds great. Earning six figures part time sounds great. The idea that just thinking good thoughts could change your life sounds absolutely wonderful. Hard work doesn’t sound so great. In fact, it sounds kind of hard. However, hard work has the best chance of yielding the best results. Selling easy paths that don’t work distracts people from the real path that could actually help them.

Telling people that cutting out trans-fats will cause them to lose weight distracts them from the fact that eating less will cause them to lose weight. Telling people that they can earn six figures by flipping houses distracts them from the fact that good investments and budgeting will build wealth. Publishing a video claiming that good thoughts are the catalyst for improving one’s life distracts people from the fact that hard work is the only reliable catalyst for improvement.

The Truth in the Law of Attraction

I’m willing to grant that there’s a little bit of truth to the law of attraction. If you concentrate on improving your life, while your neighbor concentrates on how much his life sucks, you probably stand a better chance of improving than your neighbor, if only because you’re more likely to see the opportunities and take the risks that can help you out.

There’s no magic, though, and no law. It’s about you trying to better yourself. Big surprise. Trying to do something increases the chances of succeeding at doing something.

I’m sure that The Secret’s cast would use this to defend themselves, saying that it’s good thoughts and hard work that really accomplish improvements. Sleezy infomercials pitching ab exercisers do the same thing when they briefly mention “proper diet” when claiming weight loss. Real estate scams print “results not typical” in tiny letters when discussing all the millionare success stories. A scam is a scam, even if you aren’t technically lying. Ab infomercials aren’t selling proper diet, real estate flipping programs aren’t selling personal bankruptcy, and The Secret isn’t selling hard work.

The Lies in the Law of Attraction

Since concentrating on negative issues is a surefire way to attract more of them, according to The Secret, your best bet to get out of debt is to simply not worry about it. Imagine having more money, and keep spending the way you’ve been spending. Somehow by imagining you’ve got money, you eventually will. Budgets are for chumps! That money you want will show up eventually. Either that or the debt collectors. But don’t think about that. That would attract problems.

If the law of attraction really worked the way The Secret says it does, then your best bet for improving your financial fortune would be to buy lottery tickets and think really, really hard about winning. Let me know how that works out for you.

The Insanity of The Secret

The Secret says that the people who have debt, heath problems, etc. are attracting their problems. Likewise, people with wealth are attracting prosperity. As evidence for this, The Secret cites the fact that people with debt and health problems talk more about these things than people without them, while prosperous people talk more about their wealth. This clearly shows that thinking (and talking) about debt attracts more debt, while thinking about wealth attracts more wealth.

First off, most of the wealthy people I know don’t talk about their wealth much. Second, isn’t it possible that people get problems and then talk about them? Doesn’t that seem to fit Occam’s Razor pretty well? I don’t talk about my lung cancer very much, but if I actually had lung cancer, I might.

Joe Vitale, a “metaphysicist” who appears in The Secret, tells us that people who get into car accidents do so because they were thinking about them too much, that they attracted car accidents. In my experience, the people who get into the most car accidents are not thinking about the possibility of accidents, or anything else to do with driving.

What about the people who get struck by lightning? Are they the ones thinking about it the most? When I think about getting hit by lighting, I get off the damned golf course.

A Case Study

The Secret tells the story of a gay man who had a terrible job with coworkers who treated him like crap, who was constantly physically assaulted by gay-haters, and who was heckled by homophobes when he did stand-up. By concentrating on his problems, he was causing them to magnify. When he learned about the law of attraction, he changed what he was concentrating on. By just concentrating on the good life he wanted, the mean coworkers quit their jobs, the gay-haters stopped assaulting him, and suddenly he was a riot on-stage and the hecklers were gone.

Are we seriously supposed to believe that good thoughts made others quit their jobs? That good thoughts stopped constant physical attacks and turned audiences full of homophobic hecklers into gay-embracing, supportive audiences delivering standing ovations? Are you kidding me?

Burglary victoms, don’t invest in better locks and an alarm system. That’s just concentrating on the problem. What you should do is concentrate on what you want. You know, a house that hasn’t been broken into, and a stereo that hasn’t been stolen.

Rape victoms, it’s your fault. If you were thinking good thoughts, those rapists wouldn’t have attacked you and violated you in ways you never thought possible. Now, go clean up and think about something positive, because if you keep thinking about the rape, it’s going to happen again. Mr.Vitale says so.

Why Even Care About The Secret?

Why do I have such a problem with the secret? Because it’s taking advantage of gullible people. It’s a slick sales pitch targeting the unfortunate. Sadly, people like Oprah and Ellen DeGeneres are helping them, instead of promoting people who actually have useful advice.

Promoting a false hope, a lie, about what it takes to improve ones life simply exacerbates the problem. Every person who spends more time hoping for extra money spends less time actually budgeting. Encouraging people to hope and think about change, rather than working for change, digs them deeper into the holes they are in.

It’s the right of every slimy guru to sell artificial hopes and dreams to fools, just as it’s the right of gullible people to buy that snake oil. That doesn’t mean we should say its acceptable.

A Solution that Doesn’t Rely on Hope

The truth is that improving your situation is usually possible, but it’s usually not easy. If you want to get out of debt, you need to build a budget and plan. Thinking about more money isn’t going to help. Actually getting a second job to earn more money will help. Hard work will always triumph over good wishes.

You don’t have to work hard if you don’t want to. You can take the false hopes. You can think really hard about improving your situation, instead of actually trying, and working, to improve your situation. But while you’re feeling upbeat about how eventually all your “hard thoughts” are going to pay off, your neighbor is actually getting a second job. In a few years, he’ll have whittled his debt down, while you’ve continued to rack up more credit card bills. In the meantime, the makers of The Secret will have made a pretty penny off your indulgence and gullibility.

My “Scientific” Experiment

In the name of fairness, I’m going to try the law of attraction for myself. If it works, I’ll rewrite this post to say that the law of attraction is scientific fact, and I’ll buy copies of The Secret for all my friends and family. I’m going to think about something I really want, and I’ll really hope it materializes. I’m going to hope like I’ve never hoped before.

However, if my thoughts can really control reality, then everyone involved with The Secret, you’d better stay off the streets, because what I’m thinking about, what I’m really, really hoping for, is that each of you gets crushed by a runaway garbage truck.

(See also: The Top 6 Reasons Why the Law of Attraction (and “The Secret”) is Bunk)

Best Comment

Sosuke Says:
February 20th, 2007 at 3:43 pm

“The Secret”, when combined with hard work and good exercise will make all your dreams come true!

*Hard work not typical of those who purchase “The Secret”

I’m not talking about race or gender, though I’ll touch on that at the end. I’m talking about your outward appearances. Your clothing. Your style. Maybe your hair.

Judging Book Covers

I can already hear the voice of dissent: “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” Well, I do judge books based on their covers, and so do you. When you walk into the bookstore, there are thousands of books, with hundreds (at least) in any given section. You can’t tell me that you look through every single Sci Fi book, or every single mystery book, before you decide what to buy. The sheer number of books would be overwhelming if you tried to “properly” evaluate every one. So you optimize. You look at covers. You read the titles. Out of the hundreds of books, you might pick up half a dozen, at most, and glance through them. You pick up maybe one percent to actually look through, probably even less than that.

Well, the same rules apply to people. We interact with too many people to really get to know them all. We optimize and judge based on appearances, just like we do with books. Go ahead and deny it if you want. You can cling to an idea of “fairness” that requires that everyone be judged based on “who they are” if that’s what you want. But it’ll make you a hypocrite. Just like you have to judge books based on their covers, purely as an optimization, you also have to judge people on appearances. You don’t have the time to get to know everyone. Even if you did, they wouldn’t all have the time.

Who Judges You Based on Appearances

Want to know who’s judging you based on appearances? I can tell you:

• Potential employers
• Current employers
• Coworkers
• Potential mates
• Current mates
• Friends
• Waiters/Waitresses
• Everyone you know
• Everyone you don’t know

Potential mates are evaluating your appearances before they even know your name. Employers are judging your appearances from the instant you walk in the door. Waiters are deciding what you’re likely to tip based on your clothes. Even strangers on the street are sizing you up as they walk past you: “Geek,” “Frat boy,” “Suit.” They’re judging you based on appearances, based on your clothes, your hair.

Even your current friends are judging your appearances constantly. You don’t believe me? You think that maybe my friends might judge me, but your friends would never judge you based on how you look? Okay, go dye your hair neon green. You’ll get some comments. They might tell you that you look great — more likely they’ll tell you that you look like an idiot — but you can bet they’re going to notice. If they weren’t judging you based on appearances, why would they care? Why would they even notice? If you think your girlfriend, coworkers, and employer are any less judgemental than your friends, you’re crazy.

Why People Judge You Based on Appearances

Aside from the fact that there are so many people that judging people becomes a necessity, there’s one other basic reason why people judge your appearances. It’s the same reason that I say it’s good to judge based on appearances.

You choose what appearance to present.

If you’re wearing a suit, you chose to put on that suit. If you’re wearing torn jeans and a “witty” t-shirt that’s worn around the neck, you chose to put on those clothes. You picked out what you’d put on for the day. Why wouldn’t I judge you based on your choices?

If you wear a baseball cap and everyday clothes to an interview, your potential employer is going to assume that either you’re an idiot, or you don’t really care. In either case, you’re not who they want. If you’d worn a suit, you’d appear as if you cared. You’d look like a professional.

If you’re a guy with long hair, it says something about you. Depending on how groomed it is, it might say you’re laid back, or it might say you’re lazy and a slacker. I’m not telling you to cut your hair. I’m just saying that it’s sending out a message. You are sending out a message.

Your Appearance Says Who You Are

Your clothes tell others who you are. If you’re dressed like a college frat boy, and you’re trying to pick up some girl at the bar, she’s going to notice how you’re dressed. Depending on your age, and whether the girl in question wants to date a frat guy, it might help or hurt your chances, but she’s going to notice. If she doesn’t want a frat guy, you’re going to be dismissed out of hand. If she does want a frat guy, I hope you’re not wearing that same worn-out, anime t-shirt I saw you in last week. That shirt marks you as a geek.

Your clothes might mark you as a geek, a frat guy, a suit, a sorority girl, a free spirit, a lackey, or a goth. You better believe they mark you, though.

The Clothes Don’t Make the Man, They Make the Promotion

Everyone’s heard a story about some guy who got promoted because he dressed the part, while another guy who did all the work got left behind. I’ll admit, that’s not entirely fair. Fair isn’t the way the world works, though. If you don’t have a really great manager, he’s probably going to have trouble telling who’s really doing the most work. He’s going to rely at least partly on appearances. The guy in the suit simply looks more productive than the guy in the stained jeans, even if that’s not the case. You can hate this if you want, but it’s not going to help anything. You’re better off competing than crying foul and removing yourself from the game.

If everyone at your work is wearing a suit, and you want to compete, you should probably wear a suit, too. I know, suits are expensive. If you’re working in an environment where everyone else is wearing a suit, though, you can probably afford to wear suits, too. You decide whether it’s worth the money.

Remember, you pick your clothes. You decide what appearance you want to present. When people judge your appearances, they’re judging decisions that you made. They’re judging you based on what you choose to advertise.

What You Shouldn’t Worry About

There are aspects of your appearance that you probably shouldn’t worry about. Basically, don’t worry about the things beyond your control. Your race is irrelevant. Now, I’m not saying that your race isn’t being judged. It most certainly is. However, you can’t do anything about it in the day-to-day, so you might as well deal with it. The same with your gender. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t fight against serious discrimination when you can prove it. I’m just saying that you shouldn’t get your panties in a bunch just because some jackass’s personal opinion of you suffers because you’re black. There’s little you can do to get Mr. Hitler on your side, so I wouldn’t bother. You’re probably better off avoiding that frustration and improving other areas of your life.

You also shouldn’t worry about it if you can’t afford to spend a lot of money on clothes. I certainly think that buying higher-quality clothes is a plus, and the quality of your clothes certainly says things about you. However, the effort you put into your clothes matters more. If I’m an interviewer, and I’m comparing a guy in a Calvin Klein suit to a guy in a suit from Target, the guy in the expensive suit might look a little better. However, both look a lot better than the guy in jeans. The fact that you’re wearing a suit at all matters more than the expense. The guy in the cheap suit still looks better than the guy in Abercrombie jeans. It’s not just about cost.

Of course, cheap doesn’t always have to look cheap. Shop around. Also, those suits from Target don’t look half bad.

Importance of Factors Other Than Appearance

All this attention to appearances should not be taken to mean that other factors do not matter. A good boss will notice your suit and the high quality work you do. A good mate will appreciate your clothes and your personality. Still appearances are important, particularly before people get to know you. First impressions are very much based on appearances, so don’t sell yourself short. Don’t dampen your wonderful personality by dressing like a boor. The people who you should really want to impress are going to judge more than just your appearances, but even they are not blind to your clothes. If you want to impress, put a high-gloss ankle boot forward.

Based on the responses to the 9 resume tips (and the bonus tips), lots of people really don’t want to hear that they are being judged based on what they show the world. I doubt those people are going to like this post much, either. I’m not going to try to keep everyone happy, though.

If the 9 tips made me responsible for starving diabetics to death, then this post is probably going to cause an outbreak of the plague. Get your penicillin ready.

Doing What You Love

If you love cleaning, you’re going to have a spotless house. If you don’t love it, the best you’ll ever get is clean, never spotless. You won’t excel unless you truly love it. I know what you’re thinking. Suzie from work has a spotless house, and she says she hates to clean. Well, Suzie’s holding a secret from you. Either she actually has a maid, or she doesn’t hate to clean. She might say she does, but what she really means is, “I don’t enjoy cleaning very much, but I absolutely love having a clean house.” If Suzie loves having a clean house enough, then she will put forth the effort to get it done. It’s not hate for cleaning that has her scrubbing stains off the bathroom grout. It’s love.

You might think that nearly everyone loves to have a clean house, but that’s not true. Most people like having a clean house. If they loved it, they’s put forth the same effort that Suzie does. Liking a clean house will get you an occasional straightening-up, and a monthly mopping.

A careful reader might note here that Suzie still doesn’t like cleaning. She just likes, or rather loves, having her house clean. That brings us to an important corollary to the first rule of productivity.

No One Loves Doing Anything

With the exception of a few primal activities and urges, this rule is very nearly universal. You might not believe this, but just bear with me.

No one loves activities. They love results.

Linux fans don’t love using Linux. They love it when they get something to work. They love the feeling of accomplishment. Likewise, programmers don’t love to code. They love the final product. Programming can be extremely tedious at times, like most jobs, but the outcome is worth it if you love the outcome enough. If you know someone who claims to love programming for its own sake, ask him how much he loves it after a full day of unsuccessful debugging. You’ll get a very different answer. You might also witness a psychotic break first hand.

Similarly, great managers don’t love the day to day activities of managing. Instead, they love the payoff, a well-oiled machine. Some love the money or power, but those aren’t great (read: productive) managers.

Competition embodies the love of results. Love of activities doesn’t spur on sports. It’s the love of winning, of accomplishing something grand. It’s not a love of golf that makes Tiger Woods one of the best. Even casual golfers are trying for results. They are trying to improve their games. If it was really about just taking a leisurely afternoon, they wouldn’t get upset when they come in way over par, nor would they be elated when they shave two strokes off their best.

It is possible to be productive at something you simply don’t care about if you love the money enough, but it’s hard. You have to really love money. You have to love money just as much as the truly productive guys love the results. It’s generally much easier to just find something else you love, and find a way to make money at that.

So, what’s the lesson we can take from this corollary? Basically, the lesson is that effectively, Suzie does love to clean. Since no one loves activities, and everyone loves results, it makes no sense to talk about hating an activity if you love the results. If you truly love the results, they you’ll perform the activity, and you’ll probably be good at it.

Use The Rule

Rather than fighting with this, use it to your advantage. If you want to really be great at something, to truly be productive, your best bet is to ether: find something else to do (something that you do love), or find a way to love what you already do. The second option can be a pretty difficult task. I’d recommend the first when possible. Finding something you love isn’t always easy, but it’s certainly rewarding.

For those things you need to do, but just don’t love, you can either accept that you won’t do your best, or you can try to learn to love it. Find the little things about it that make you happy. Do you have to fill out paperwork constantly? Don’t think about how tedious that tenth report is. Instead, remind yourself that doing the work in a high-quality and timely fashion reflects well on you. Think about how good it will feel to be done with all the paperwork for today. Try to find the positives, and focus on those. Or try to effect a change, if you’ve got an idea for how to fix the problem. It’s about focusing on the positive.

Do you need to get in shape, but don’t enjoy exercise and dieting? Don’t concentrate on how hungry you are, how tasty that pie would be, or how boring you find running on the treadmill to be. Think about how good it will be to look at the scale and see another pound gone. Think about how loose your pants have gotten a month into your diet. Find things you love about what you’re doing. If you overlook the positive in favor of the negative, you’re more than likely going to find yourself buying larger pants next month, not smaller.

Successful dieters don’t hate to diet, in spite of what they might say. They love it. That’s what separates successful dieters from the unsuccessful ones. The unsuccessful ones don’t love the results enough to pass up the raspberry-drizzled chocolate torte. The successful ones would rather shave another half pound off their weight than have dessert. If you want to be one of the successful ones, then learn to love it.

If you want to be successful, if you want to be productive, do what you love. Either find something new that you can love, or learn to love what you’re already doing.

1. Do not fax. Faxed resumes look horrible. They are harder to read, and when you send it in upside down (and therefore the page numbers are upside down), we’ll make fun of you. It also seems to advertise that you’re uncomfortable with email, whether it’s really the case or not. No one should want to give that impression. Emailing your resume makes it much easier to transfer around internally. Keeping your prospective employer happy is always a good thing. My personal preferences for resume submission are:
   1. Email
   2. Regular mail
   3. Dropped off in person
   4. Carrier pigeon
   5. Tied to a brick and tossed through the window
   6. Faxed
2. Pick up the phone. No one calls. No one. If you just take five minutes to call and express interest in the job, you’ll greatly set yourself apart from the masses. Ostensibly, you’re just calling to make sure we “got your resume” or something else innocuous, but in reality, you’re calling to say hello, and get your name stuck in my head. And that’s a good thing. It shows motivation, which counts a lot more than listing “self-motivated” as a skill.
3. Respond courteously. If you are lucky enough that the company puts forth the effort to let you know that your resume was received, you need to say thanks. Much like calling, this distinguishes you from the masses. Everyone who emailed in a resume during this last search was sent a “resume received, under consideration”-type email in return. Only two actually took the time to say “Thanks, hope to hear from you.” Both got bumped up in the queue, and one was selected for an interview.
4. Go above and beyond. Rules two and three are simple examples of this, but if you can think of anything that’ll really wow us (in a good way), do it. Don’t show up wearing an I-wanna-work-here sandwich board. That’s bad wow. Good wow is mailing your resume on 100% cotton paper along with 3 sealed and signed letters of recommendation, like one applicant did. Yes, something like that is a little different and surprising, but it’s also impressive. It worked. She got an interview.

I’m all recommended out now, but we’ll be going through a bunch of interviews shortly, so maybe there’ll be some new tips shortly.