What has your job (or internship interview process been like? What surprises you? What frustrates you? What excites you? How did you prepare? How did you perform?
The last two summers, I've worked for the government and as with anything having to do with the government, there's generally quite a process associated with a number of things. The interview process, especially for one that requires a security clearance, is no different. It started with a very short, high-level interview about my interest in working for the government. It was short, abstract, and quite some time ago, so I don't even remember much about it other than that I felt it went well and had a good rapport with the gentlemen who interviewed me. After that, I had to go through the background check process. The background check process for this type of position is an extensive one. It necessitates that one applies for the position in September so that there's time to go through the entire process by the time that summer rolls around. It started with a third-party investigator who asked me a number of questions about myself, my family, my friends, my personal interests, and more. Understandably, they can't just rely on my word, so they had to speak to a lot of people who knew me. They spoke to my closer friends (including John Johnson), my family members, past employers (going back to my high school employment at Dairy Queen), and my previous martial arts coach. They even reached out to a person or two who'd commented on recent Instagram pictures of mine, despite not speaking to them much outside of that social-media capacity. Finally, they knocked on a variety of doors around my neighborhood back home. This wouldn't be that notable if I hadn't lived in a rough, poverty-stricken neighborhood. Naturally, even if they knew me and had liked me, they said they never heard of me in fear that I was in some sort of trouble with the system and they'd sent some Feds to get me. Fun. Sorry about that, 'hood. I was surprised too. After a couple days' worth of polygraphs and psych evals, I'd finally arrived at another interview to see where I'd best fit with my prospective organization. This interview was less to vet if I'd be a good fit somewhere (I'd hope that by then they'd feel that way), but included more questions about how I felt about specific types of work and what I wanted to do. This interview wasn't a big deal for me, because it didn't seem to be the case that there was a lot riding on it. The next and final interviews I had was at the end of this summer which was for potential full-time, post-graduation positions. These were surely the biggest ones I'd had to face, as there were a lot more riding on these. A successful performance in at least one of these would net me a reasonably secure position with a good group of people and relatively interesting work. My first of which was on a Tuesday on the last week of the summer. I had gotten appropriately dressed for it and otherwise prepared by researching the organization and being prepared to discuss, in specific terms, what I'd be able to provide in terms of value. I checked my calendar the morning of, and realized I'd made the grave mistake of not checking for updates on the interview time and location. It was in a much further place and an hour earlier... effectively starting in 20 minutes from my noticing this. I did what I could by calling and expressing my mistake and mentioned that I'd love to still come get what time I can in, they were cool with it. I arrived 40 minutes late, but I arrived ready, and ended up having what I felt was the best interview of my life. They had a listing of my schooling information and what I'd worked on, so it was more on my person (general interview questions) than the regular technical interview, and the general interviews are my favorites. We ended up pushing much past the initially intended end time (they were willing to keep going despite having someone else waiting to come in for their scheduled interview), and they said they'd be in touch. An hour later, they e-mailed me and told me I got it; I've since accepted. What is your overall impression of the general interview process? Is it efficient? Is it effective? Is it humane? Is it ethical? The process was long and tedious, and I found that they always seemed to reach out for information or paperwork on my busiest weeks. That being said, it went pretty well and I feel made the most of it. Additionally, I feel the length and depth of the process is reasonable for the clearance aspect of it. The government uses more paper than the usual company, so it lacks some efficiency, surely. However, I think it's reasonably effective in doing what it needs to do. I found it to be humane and ethical. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to see less humane or ethical processes from private companies due to some possibly lesser regulations.
0 Comments
8/27/2017 0 Comments Reading 01: Defining "Hacker"From the readings and from your experience, what exactly is a hacker? That is, what are the key characteristics of the hacker archetype?
Honestly, it seems to be the case that there isn’t an “exact” definition of what a hacker is. Each of the provided readings include different focuses on what a “hacker” may be composed of. One of the readings goes as far as to cover everything between common dress, religion, and the sexual habits of the modern hacker. Another seems content to focus on a hacker’s interest in working obliquely. Mark Zuckerberg states that “hacking just means building something quickly or testing the boundaries of what can be done”, contrary to the popular notion of a hacker that has more negative connotations. To try and arrive at a better understanding of what a hacker may be, we may wish to try and draw some parallels across the breadth of this type of discussion. Hackers are intelligent, skilled individuals who generally disdain going about things mindlessly. It’s important for their work to be legitimately impactful or meaningful (at least to them). Even in their leisurely time, it may seem that they elect to remain actively engaged, favoring a variety of readings over reality television, chess over checkers, and the like. Their nature may cause a disconnect with those outside of this type of persona, and may contribute to some potential for bonding with those who share it. Do you identify with these attributes? That is, would you consider yourself a hacker? I do see a lot of overlap with myself and the attributes described in a number of these readings about “hackers”. I certainly elect to be actively and purposefully engaged in both my career and personal life. On the day to day, I’m always working with some form of goal in mind rather than being content to simply exist. My lack of interest in large-scale or office politics (or proactive interest in avoiding them as much as I can) is notably similar, as well. The being said, I think that there’s a lot that’d keep me from describing myself as a hacker. Some feel that I’m more socially driven than a number of those who’d identify with the hacker-culture, and I like getting dressed and suited up from time to time, while many of the described type only dread it. Most notably, the term “hacker” seems poised to be eternally connected to computers and programming. While my chosen field of study is computer science, I understand that I’m not one of the folks who lives it day in and day out, nor do I feel that I will be as capable as I perceive many of those who would describe themselves as “hackers” to be. With all of the lines I feel that I’m able to draw between the common basis of what a hacker is, I’d say that even if I were to be included in that grouping, I’d be an outcast in a grouping consisting of what some may consider society’s outcasts. What is your reaction to this characterization? Part of me questions whether I should feel some sort of shame or some other sort of way for feeling disconnected to this identity that so many of my peers here at school may fit much better. Personally, I’m not a huge fan of trying to put myself (or others) into categorized boxes, especially when the boundaries for which are so ambiguous that it took reading 6 different writings to get a grip on what may be the basis of that criteria. So, while I consider that feeling, I ultimately feel that it doesn’t bother me much. I think a lot of those who fall into this category are surprisingly different from one another as they are the same. To me, an art discipline is one that focuses on appealing to the human person. Whether you’re creating something that’s visually, auditory, or otherwise appealing, there’s an emphasis on individuality and creating something new for the sake of indulgence in whatever the piece is.
It’s distinctive from science disciplines in that there’s no continuous improvement of the discipline. It changes, sure, but for the better? It’s subjective, in my opinion. The hard sciences have continued to become more useful in solving problems as we acquire new knowledge. While they may both leverage creativity from time to time, I feel that art is distinctive from the engineering in that there’s no problems to be solved. I don’t feel that Computer Science is an art discipline. The next question, then, is whether it’s an engineering discipline or a science discipline. My first instinct tells me… that I’m not really sure. I’ve read Ian Bogost’s “Programmers: Stop Calling Yourselves Engineers”. Off the bat, I don’t feel that anyone who can program is an engineer, or a computer scientist for that matter. Of course, his article went deeper than just “programmers” to include software engineers and more specific roles in the field. It seems that a good bit of his reasoning aligns with the lack of certifications or quality of work in some systems created by software engineers. While it may be true that the average quality of work and certification level is lower among those he targets in his article than “real engineers” may exhibit, programming (and the fields it manifests in), is a different beast that makes it seem like he’s comparing apples to oranges. Anyone can write code and produce something without any capital or material other than a machine and maybe internet access. Not everyone has the multiple resources or capital required to construct buildings or build physical systems. Additionally, we’ve only been programming or software engineering or what-else-have-you for how many years? How much has the field evolved in that time? Ask those same questions for the “real engineering” disciplines Bogost describes. I think you’d find that the answers are drastically different. With the more fluid, accessible, and pervasive landscape that Computer Science spans, it makes sense for there to be greater variability in the quality of those who have the means to produce something relevant to society. A recent software engineering grad could make an app with a great idea that explodes in popularity overnight, and because the owner’s coding ability wasn’t quite as good as the idea, it may have the types of vulnerabilities that Bogost alludes to. What is a recent civil engineering grad going to be able to do overnight that has that same level of impact or reach? I feel that Computer Science (and their branches) are significantly closer to engineering than Bogost would have it, and maybe that’s some level of influenced by my personal experience as a Computer Science major at Notre Dame, where it’s part of the engineering school. We have our heavy, theory-based courses, sure. But we aren’t solely based in the science part of it, but also the practical part of how we’d be able to effectively use this knowledge. Keeping costs down, making things secure, optimizing maintainability (planning for the future), etc. are all things that career engineers of any discipline have to do. Because of the span of the “Computer Science” field described in the prompt, I can’t say that it’s more engineering than it is science. There are large-scale similarities in how Computer Science and the hard sciences have evolved over time and led to new insights that allow us to deal with much larger problems as time goes on. I feel that whether you’d consider it a science or an engineering discipline depends on what you’re actually referring to, specifically. If you’re closer to the theory side of the house, more science. If you’re closer to the real-world, applied usage of the field, I’d say it’s closer to engineering. If we're allowing chemistry and chemical engineering to have the same base and be two different disciplines, I think it's fair to say that I can make this point about Computer Science (and the Software Engineering side). Whatever it is… I don’t feel that it’s an art discipline, though. About Me:
I'm Nikolas Dean Brooks, a senior at the University of Notre Dame. I've come to Notre Dame all the way from Miami, Florida in the interest of growing a well-rounded set of skills that would allow me to make the most of my opportunities as I set out in my career to have a positive impact on peoples' lives. I currently anticipate being able to have this impact through federal government service. My interests: I love sunshine, people, and exercise. When I'm not working, working out, or on the beach, I'm probably fragging noobs (or teaching noobs how to frag other noobs). Why Computer Science? Some people really love computer science. They eat, sleep, and breathe it. I'm not one of those people. I saw the opportunities that a Computer Science education would provide me in terms of both jobs and potential for impact, and I went for it. Hopes for this class: Partially because I don't love the discipline deeply, I don't usually keep up to date with the news of the industry as much as I may benefit from. I hope to become better acclimated to this space so that I can be more knowledgeable about a wide variety of topics that are close to my chosen discipline. Pressing Issues: Despite not being deeply involved with the news of the space, I've heard some legitimate discussion about artificial intelligence and the dangers of its progression to our species, so that might be a big deal or something... :) Additionally, as Amazon continues to grow more and more powerful (it ate Whole Foods... Whole), Facebook continues to amass more data, etc., we should probably have some discussions about these companies and the steps they're taking from an ethical standpoint as they become increasingly powerful. |
AuthorNikolas Dean Brooks is a current Senior at Notre Dame. This blog is for the "Ethics and Professional Issues" course under Dr. Peter Bui. Archives |