4 ms·

While I agree that having you jump through these hoops is really time consuming and annoying, for most if not all companies it's a necessary evil in order to id

While I agree that having you jump through these hoops is really time consuming and annoying, for most if not all companies it's a necessary evil in order to identify potential employees. How else do you assess a potential employee? It's gonna be either through whiteboarding/live coding with the interviewer(s) or through you portfolio, which your github repos and contributions serve as a good example. Having said that, some companies take it to the extreme, and honestly they sound like a more traditional office type of environment where I doubt you want to work at from what I can infer from your comments. I also do not agree with the assumption that only the privileged have time to contribute to open source (aka free projects). You either do it because a) you love it, or b) because you need to beef up your portfolio and you are motivated enough to do so. I'm considered a minority in the tech industry as well, yet I got into it many years ago by working on pro bono projects after going home every day from my telemarketing job at 2.am. Either in technology or in any industry, you'll get your foot on the door and you will advance faster if you enjoy what you do. This is easily recognized by potential employers when they see you participate in hackathons and that you contribute to OSS. Sure, I began doing free projects to get into the industry, but I keep doing it today because I love it and that's what makes it so easy for me to find employment as a software developer. In fact I get contacted by recruiters at least twice a week on linkedin and it's somewhat annoying. I hope Anna learns enough at her job to the point where she'll be able to easily find a job and be able to recognize toxic environments that make you jump through excessive hoops. Just my 2 cents.

geebee 11y ago
How else do you assess a potential employee? This is a critical (and very fair) question. That said, I'm not sure that the options you listed are the only ones available. I'm not sure they're the best options, but I'm certainly not sure they're the worst, either. How does it work in other knowledge-intensive fields? Physicians don't have to answer questions about organic chemistry at the whiteboard whenever they change jobs, but then again, physicians are subject to an extremely rigorous and standardized academic and apprenticeship path, which results in a a government backed exclusive right to practice. Actuaries don't have to pass exams on calculus or linear algebra every time they change job, and they don't strictly have to major in math, but they do have to take a long series of difficult exams that cover calculus and linear algebra, along with more advanced mathematics (and other more regulatory issues), and they must gain certain types of work experience. There are many other models out there. I want to be sure I'm not coming off as endorsing any particular approach here. I do see some benefits to the current system - in theory, anyone who can study effectively and learn to do complex data structure and algorithm based problem solving at a whiteboard is welcome to take the google entrance exams. Or not. There's some good in that. However, I also believe that there may be more harm in it that our industry fully realizes. Personally, I would be willing to take actuary-style exams, or some kind of board exam, if it meant that I could create a study path, truly devote myself to it, be assured a transparent, fair, and consistent evaluation. For me, the tough part is that I have to re-load all of this into exam ready memory every time I interview, which can be unpredictable, and happens over and over (I wouldn't object to "refresher" exams either). I willingly acknowledge that what I described above is half-formed, and may have all kinds of problems I haven't anticipated. Personally, I do think that what we have is clearly driving some talented people away from our field, but it might also be attracting others. Hard to say. What I am sure about is that we must consider any claim of a "shortage" in the context of what I consider to be almost a kind of hazing every time people change jobs. The links I provided below (the JOS one) was eye opening, we really do lose people to our industry because of this. I don't have an answer, but I really do think we need to see this as a problem.
pyb 11y ago
Just off the top of my head, a few possible hiring processes. - Recommendations from people you trust - Pairing interview - Give a difficult/open ended homework problem - Whiteboarding interviews are suitable for some candidates, they're not all bad ;) - Pick from your list (http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/12/whos-on-your-list.html http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/12/whos-on-your...) - Asking the candidate for ideas as to how they'd best be assessed - Culture fit ; Gut feeling ; or any conversational interview followed by review of performance after 1 month - Portfolio review (no one actually does it in my experience) - Hiring off reputation in the community I'm sure there are plenty more.

geebee 11y ago

How else do you assess a potential employee? This is a critical (and very fair) question. That said, I'm not sure that the options you listed are the only ones available. I'm not sure they're the best options, but I'm certainly not sure they're the worst, either. How does it work in other knowledge-intensive fields? Physicians don't have to answer questions about organic chemistry at the whiteboard whenever they change jobs, but then again, physicians are subject to an extremely rigorous and standardized academic and apprenticeship path, which results in a a government backed exclusive right to practice. Actuaries don't have to pass exams on calculus or linear algebra every time they change job, and they don't strictly have to major in math, but they do have to take a long series of difficult exams that cover calculus and linear algebra, along with more advanced mathematics (and other more regulatory issues), and they must gain certain types of work experience. There are many other models out there. I want to be sure I'm not coming off as endorsing any particular approach here. I do see some benefits to the current system - in theory, anyone who can study effectively and learn to do complex data structure and algorithm based problem solving at a whiteboard is welcome to take the google entrance exams. Or not. There's some good in that. However, I also believe that there may be more harm in it that our industry fully realizes. Personally, I would be willing to take actuary-style exams, or some kind of board exam, if it meant that I could create a study path, truly devote myself to it, be assured a transparent, fair, and consistent evaluation. For me, the tough part is that I have to re-load all of this into exam ready memory every time I interview, which can be unpredictable, and happens over and over (I wouldn't object to "refresher" exams either). I willingly acknowledge that what I described above is half-formed, and may have all kinds of problems I haven't anticipated. Personally, I do think that what we have is clearly driving some talented people away from our field, but it might also be attracting others. Hard to say. What I am sure about is that we must consider any claim of a "shortage" in the context of what I consider to be almost a kind of hazing every time people change jobs. The links I provided below (the JOS one) was eye opening, we really do lose people to our industry because of this. I don't have an answer, but I really do think we need to see this as a problem.

pyb 11y ago

Just off the top of my head, a few possible hiring processes. - Recommendations from people you trust - Pairing interview - Give a difficult/open ended homework problem - Whiteboarding interviews are suitable for some candidates, they're not all bad ;) - Pick from your list (http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/12/whos-on-your-list.html http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/12/whos-on-your...) - Asking the candidate for ideas as to how they'd best be assessed - Culture fit ; Gut feeling ; or any conversational interview followed by review of performance after 1 month - Portfolio review (no one actually does it in my experience) - Hiring off reputation in the community I'm sure there are plenty more.