> I've disregarded resumes before because of a single typo. Usually in ... blah blah blah...
What does this have to do with my comment? I was remarking on the limited information provided, not whether it's unfair or not to dismiss a resume based on grammar. I'll just assume you inferred more from my comment than was stated.
> It's not insufficient information.
This is the only part of your comment discussion mine. So, let's see what information is missing.
So, someone whose primary language is, let's say, Italian, French second, and English third is required to have impeccable English skills? In Quebec, whose primary working language is French? These aren't exceptions. These are the rule outside the US. Knowing 2 languages is common. Knowing 3 is not at all unusual.
It's insufficient information precisely because it doesn't provide us any context.
Employer is where?
Employee is from where?
Employer is hiring for what position? From where?
Employer has few/many candidates to choose from?
Employer seeking highly specific skill set?
English mistakes were real mistakes, and not merely a single typo?
Now, you can make a lot of assumptions and say that the employer was hiring someone from the USA, a native English speaker, for a job in the USA. You can also make the assumption that the employer isn't looking for a specific skill set, and that the mistakes were more than just typos (despite that being the only example offered). I can make a lot of assumptions. But that's all it is, an assumption.
> the answer is unquestionably NO, it is not unfair.
Such a hard and fast rule. Unquestionably? I think it would be grossly unfair to hire in a region where people aren't native English speakers for a programming position and demand better English than the employer.
What does this have to do with my comment? I was remarking on the limited information provided, not whether it's unfair or not to dismiss a resume based on grammar. I'll just assume you inferred more from my comment than was stated.
> It's not insufficient information.
This is the only part of your comment discussion mine. So, let's see what information is missing.
So, someone whose primary language is, let's say, Italian, French second, and English third is required to have impeccable English skills? In Quebec, whose primary working language is French? These aren't exceptions. These are the rule outside the US. Knowing 2 languages is common. Knowing 3 is not at all unusual.
It's insufficient information precisely because it doesn't provide us any context.
Employer is where? Employee is from where? Employer is hiring for what position? From where? Employer has few/many candidates to choose from? Employer seeking highly specific skill set? English mistakes were real mistakes, and not merely a single typo?
Now, you can make a lot of assumptions and say that the employer was hiring someone from the USA, a native English speaker, for a job in the USA. You can also make the assumption that the employer isn't looking for a specific skill set, and that the mistakes were more than just typos (despite that being the only example offered). I can make a lot of assumptions. But that's all it is, an assumption.
> the answer is unquestionably NO, it is not unfair.
Such a hard and fast rule. Unquestionably? I think it would be grossly unfair to hire in a region where people aren't native English speakers for a programming position and demand better English than the employer.