[討論] 學得深,學得廣. 哪個比較對未來有幫助?
最近打算年後轉職,
開了一下104,有一個職缺,要求一堆技能,薪水有夠鳥的.
還以為是特例,又繼續找了一下,結果跑出一大堆,
要求之多,我想沒幾個人敢說是精通,我想熟也不敢說,最多稍微碰過一下而已.
那麼往要求少的職缺看起,職缺真的不多,蠻少的.
那麼學的深跟學得廣,在實際現實上,哪個比較有前途未來?
當然學得深又廣的,這種神人例外.
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 118.163.4.253
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Tech_Job/M.1481727542.A.7F8.html
※ 編輯: cerwvk (118.163.4.253), 12/14/2016 23:00:52
→
12/14 23:04, , 1F
12/14 23:04, 1F
推
12/14 23:04, , 2F
12/14 23:04, 2F
→
12/14 23:06, , 3F
12/14 23:06, 3F
→
12/14 23:09, , 4F
12/14 23:09, 4F
→
12/14 23:09, , 5F
12/14 23:09, 5F
推
12/14 23:10, , 6F
12/14 23:10, 6F
我舉個例子.系統架構.video stream,java,c++,python,qt,javascript,wifi,android
老實說這種幾乎全包的技能. 我真的沒辦法. 最多只能說有碰過,可以拼拼湊湊.
我才納悶,敢說熟的人,真的熟?
還有一個情形,曾經寫組語寫到很熟. 但是之後專案,已經不再用組語寫code.
再過個幾年,忘了差不多了. 這種情形敢說熟?
所以才提到廣跟深,對工作的選擇的想法.
→
12/14 23:11, , 7F
12/14 23:11, 7F
→
12/14 23:12, , 8F
12/14 23:12, 8F
→
12/14 23:14, , 9F
12/14 23:14, 9F
→
12/14 23:15, , 10F
12/14 23:15, 10F
目前在陸商,想跳回台商. 只是要求全能,且熟的. 很納悶,誰熟這麼多?
我也只不過會裡面的一部分,工作所需的,也不敢說是精通.
→
12/14 23:16, , 11F
12/14 23:16, 11F
→
12/14 23:17, , 12F
12/14 23:17, 12F
→
12/14 23:19, , 13F
12/14 23:19, 13F
→
12/14 23:20, , 14F
12/14 23:20, 14F
真的,也正在想,如何擴展人脈,linkedin也許有效?
推
12/14 23:21, , 15F
12/14 23:21, 15F
→
12/14 23:21, , 16F
12/14 23:21, 16F
真的,看了104,爛缺一堆. 正在想,如何找好缺,經營人脈.
→
12/14 23:28, , 17F
12/14 23:28, 17F
的確不衝突,不過我沒辦法就是.
→
12/14 23:31, , 18F
12/14 23:31, 18F
一個職缺,頂我現公司3個職缺左右.還蠻敢寫的.
未離職,時間有限,看這種職缺應該是亂寫的,就不想去了.
→
12/14 23:32, , 19F
12/14 23:32, 19F
推
12/14 23:34, , 20F
12/14 23:34, 20F
→
12/14 23:35, , 21F
12/14 23:35, 21F
→
12/14 23:37, , 22F
12/14 23:37, 22F
→
12/14 23:40, , 23F
12/14 23:40, 23F
→
12/14 23:40, , 24F
12/14 23:40, 24F
→
12/14 23:41, , 25F
12/14 23:41, 25F
→
12/14 23:42, , 26F
12/14 23:42, 26F
推
12/14 23:45, , 27F
12/14 23:45, 27F
→
12/14 23:45, , 28F
12/14 23:45, 28F
→
12/14 23:56, , 29F
12/14 23:56, 29F
推
12/15 00:04, , 30F
12/15 00:04, 30F
真的. 想辦法也要進對的公司.
推
12/15 00:13, , 31F
12/15 00:13, 31F
推
12/15 00:22, , 32F
12/15 00:22, 32F
噓
12/15 00:52, , 33F
12/15 00:52, 33F
→
12/15 01:24, , 34F
12/15 01:24, 34F
推
12/15 01:39, , 35F
12/15 01:39, 35F
推
12/15 02:34, , 36F
12/15 02:34, 36F
推
12/15 03:34, , 37F
12/15 03:34, 37F
推
12/15 05:01, , 38F
12/15 05:01, 38F
→
12/15 05:01, , 39F
12/15 05:01, 39F
推
12/15 05:03, , 40F
12/15 05:03, 40F
→
12/15 07:59, , 41F
12/15 07:59, 41F
→
12/15 07:59, , 42F
12/15 07:59, 42F
→
12/15 08:11, , 43F
12/15 08:11, 43F
→
12/15 08:14, , 44F
12/15 08:14, 44F
→
12/15 08:45, , 45F
12/15 08:45, 45F
→
12/15 08:45, , 46F
12/15 08:45, 46F
→
12/15 09:52, , 47F
12/15 09:52, 47F
→
12/15 10:12, , 48F
12/15 10:12, 48F
推
12/15 10:27, , 49F
12/15 10:27, 49F
→
12/15 10:36, , 50F
12/15 10:36, 50F
→
12/15 10:37, , 51F
12/15 10:37, 51F
→
12/15 10:37, , 52F
12/15 10:37, 52F
推
12/15 11:09, , 53F
12/15 11:09, 53F
→
12/15 11:11, , 54F
12/15 11:11, 54F
推
12/15 11:33, , 55F
12/15 11:33, 55F
推
12/15 11:57, , 56F
12/15 11:57, 56F
這點蠻有道理的,但是我想很多人有遇過,
下一份工作跟現工作未必是正相關,
甚至之前工作很熟的部分,過個幾年後,就忘了差不多.
如果要走深度部分,職缺蠻難找的. 因為限死工作類型了.
甚至還考量到工作地點跟居住地點. 工作機會更少.
※ 編輯: cerwvk (118.163.4.170), 12/15/2016 12:18:08
推
12/15 12:39, , 57F
12/15 12:39, 57F
推
12/15 12:46, , 58F
12/15 12:46, 58F
噓
12/15 13:48, , 59F
12/15 13:48, 59F
→
12/15 15:28, , 60F
12/15 15:28, 60F
推
12/15 19:06, , 61F
12/15 19:06, 61F
推
12/15 19:58, , 62F
12/15 19:58, 62F
→
12/15 21:59, , 63F
12/15 21:59, 63F
→
12/15 22:57, , 64F
12/15 22:57, 64F
推
12/15 23:48, , 65F
12/15 23:48, 65F
→
12/16 01:42, , 66F
12/16 01:42, 66F
→
12/16 23:23, , 67F
12/16 23:23, 67F
→
12/17 14:24, , 68F
12/17 14:24, 68F
討論串 (同標題文章)
以下文章回應了本文:
完整討論串 (本文為第 1 之 2 篇):