求职面试，最关键的四分钟

每个求职者都要经过用人单位的面试,而参加面试给人留下的初次印象往往最为深刻。求职者如果能把握住面试的最初四分钟,就有可能给面试主考官留下好的印象,从而如愿以偿获得成功。其实在面试的10秒钟内主考官已开始对求职者的专业知识、素质修养、道德水准和行为智力等进行判断。他们首先把注意力集中在能看到的(衣着、目光接触和行为举止)、能听到的(语速、音调和音量)以及讲的话上面。初次见面如不顺利,主考官便不会再给第二次机会了。大多数面试主考官认为,注意外表庄重沉稳的人很有可能对工作有责任心,当然内在的东西更为重要。外表有吸…     

求职写真集，有多少美丽可以“面试”？

即将毕业的女大学生，拍了写真集、刻录了光盘，制作了一份“写真集”做简历，用来应对激烈的求职竞争。很快收到了面试通知，有羡慕的，有仿效的，也有批评的，不满的……     

求职面试，你该着什么服装

在众多的应聘者中，竞争一个职位的最后一关就是面试。在这些竞争者中具有同样的学识，同样的工作经验，同样年轻。富有朝气，同样的能力，同样的阅历，但招聘主管最终只能在应试者中选中他们认为最适合的人。通过短短几分钟交流，个人的才华不可能全面展示，只可能某一细节打动了考官，着装就成为至关重要的因素了。这样，在其他方面都势均力敌的情况下，良好的着装配上具有职业风格的临场表现，肯定能使你脱颖而出，在考官脑海中留下印象。     

“口吃”年轻人，求职也成功

鸿洋是一个很不错的年轻人。可是,毕业差不多一年的光景了,四处应聘总是因面试时口吃而落聘。最近,鸿洋又参加公务员考试,并进入最后面试,鸿洋一家人的心又提到了嗓子眼儿。     

独具匠心的道具面试

如今，大学毕业分配难，下岗职工再就业难，就连手捧“金饭碗”的外企员工，也随时都有被“裁”掉的可能。于是，找工作成了许多人需要面对的问题。为了招聘到合格满意的人才，不少企业挖空心思，绞尽脑汁，设计了许多面试“陷阱”，有意“刁难”考生，借此作出判断、取舍。利用“道具”对     

求职第一面

作为一个职场新人,过来人都告诉你面试的第一印象非常重要,那么怎样才能让你的第一印象与众不同呢?1.展现你与面试者和公司文化的相似之处。你和对方也许并不完全相同,但你应该找出彼此兴趣相同的方面、工作方法、产品,等等。如果你成功地使有权决定录用员工的面试者看到了     

求职中常犯的几种错误

你可能会有种种困惑:为什么这家公司雇佣他人而不选择你?为什么你的面试总是失败?为什么别人的薪资成正比上翻而你却在原地徘徊?人在职场,没有人能保证不犯错误。只是聪明的求职者会不断地修正错误走向成熟。如果你在求职中遇到了瓶颈,不妨看看自己有没有犯以下的几种错误。     

求职面试易被忽略的“高级”错误

在求职面试中,没有人能保证不犯错误。只是聪明的求职者会不断地修正错误,走向成熟。然而在面试中有些错误却是一些相当聪明的求职者也难免会一犯再犯的,我们称之为高级错误。作为一名职场新人,难免会有一些面试的错误习惯,所以养成积极应对、自信、诚实的好习惯是非常重要的。希望本文的12个高级错误能够给您带来些许的提醒,使您在面试过程中,能够过五关斩六将,赢得成功。     

应届生求职简历的五大死穴

一、简历中主次不分很多简历,内容庞杂,形式混乱,贪多求全,恨不得把所有的事情都写上,结果,大杂烩,反倒让人搞不清楚应聘者究竟想表达什么。不同的经历,展示不同的能力;同一经历,不同的描述,也能展示不同的能力。写得混乱,只会让人觉得应聘者思维混乱、主次不分、目标不明。     

求职面试,你准备好了吗?

在整个应聘过程中,面试无疑是最具有决定性意义的一环,事关成败。同时,面试也是求职者全面展示自身素质、能力、品质的最好时机,面试发挥出色,可以弥补先前笔试或是其他条件如学历、专业上的一些不足。在应聘的几个环节中,面试也是难度最大     

What we talk about when we talk about risk: refining surgery's hazards in medical thought

Context: Current efforts to improve the cost‐effectiveness of health care focus on assessing accurately the value of technologically complex, costly medical treatments for individual patients and society. These efforts universally acknowledge that the determination of such value should incorporate information regarding the risks posed by a given treatment for an individual, but they typically overlook the implications for medical decision making that inhere in how notions of risk are understood and used in contemporary medical discourse. To gain perspective on how the hazards of surgery have been defined and redefined in medical thought, we examine changes over time in notions of risk related to operative care. Methods: We reviewed historical writings on risk assessment and patient selection for surgical procedures published between 1957 and 1997 and conducted informal interviews with experts. To examine changes attributable to advances in research on risk assessment, we focused on the period surrounding the 1977 publication of an influential surgical risk‐stratification index. Findings: Writings before 1977 demonstrate a summative, global approach to patients as “good” or “poor” risks, without quantifying the likelihood of specific postoperative events. Beginning in the early 1980s, assessments of operative risk increasingly emphasized quantitative estimates of the probability of dysfunction of a specific organ system after surgery. This new approach to establishing surgical risk was consistent with concurrent trends in other domains of medicine. In particular, it emphasized a more “scientific,” standardized approach to medical decision making over an earlier focus on individual physicians’ judgment and professional authority. Conclusions: Recent writings on operative risk reflect a viewpoint that is more specific and, at the same time, more generic and fragmented than earlier approaches. By permitting the separation of multiple component hazards implicit in surgical interventions, such a viewpoint may encourage a distinct, permissive standard for surgical interventions that conflicts with larger policy efforts to promote cost‐effective decision making by physicians and patients.     

Court rulings prompt talk about amending the ADA

Disability-rights advocates are considering a "legislative fix" to address some of the problems resulting from three recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings concerning the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court ruled mitigating measures such as corrective lenses and medications, must be taken into account when determining a plaintiff's disability. Plaintiff's did not qualify for ADA employment protection if their conditions, nearsightedness, monocular vision, and high blood pressure, were correctable. There are risks associated with trying to address the Court's rulings through legislation; efforts to change the ADA could backfire and harm persons who really need protection. Another concern is that legislation would face difficulty in Congress, where the prevailing view is that the ADA already has plenty of protections.     

Dying cancer patients talk about euthanasia

Within developed nations, there is increasing public debate about and apparent endorsement of the appropriateness of euthanasia as an autonomous choice to die in the face of intolerable suffering. Surveys report socio-demographic differences in rates of acceptance of euthanasia, but there is little in-depth analysis of how euthanasia is understood and positioned within the social and moral lives of individuals, particularly those who might be considered suitable candidates-for example, terminally-ill cancer patients. During discussions with 28 such patients in Australia regarding medical decisions at the end of life, euthanasia was raised by 13 patients, with the others specifically asked about it. Twenty-four patients spoke positively of euthanasia, 19 of these voicing some concerns. None identified euthanasia as a currently favoured option. Four were completely against it. Endorsement for euthanasia was in the context of a hypothetical future or for a hypothetical other person, or temporally associated with acute pain. Arguments supporting euthanasia framed the issue as a matter of freedom of choice, as preserving dignity in death, and as curbing intolerable pain and suffering, both of the patient and of those around them. A common analogy featured was that of euthanising a dog. These arguments were typically presented as self-evident justification for euthanasia, construed as an appropriate choice to die, with opposers positioned as morally inferior or ignorant. The difficulties of ensuring 'choice' and the moral connotations of 'choosing to die,' however, worked to problematise the appropriateness of euthanising specific individuals. We recommend further empirical investigation of the moral and social meanings associated with euthanasia.