4 ms·

A good resume from an experienced candidate will describe the work the candidate actually performed. A resume that is ambiguous as to the candidate's contributi

A good resume from an experienced candidate will describe the work the candidate actually performed. A resume that is ambiguous as to the candidate's contributions is usually worth tossing. In the case of a phone screen, I honestly find it hard to believe that folks have so much difficulty believing that it's possible to get a good sense of a candidate's skill and knowledge without sitting over his or her shoulder and watching him or her code. A phone screen is a conversation. In most cases, a candidate who is faking it will have a very hard time describing in technical detail his or her work, and answering technical questions about his or her work. Start with candidates who have good resumes. Ideally get code samples and/or a portfolio. Prepare for your phone screen so you can ask good questions. It really is that simple.

cpitman 11y ago
A resume can say anything. Some of it may even be true. So how are you telling the difference between a good resume and a faked good resume? It's just like spam filtering, both the candidates and companies are in an arms race to try to improve/bypass hiring filters.
- 7Figures2Commas 11y ago
  This level of paranoia is kind of amusing. If you take the time to review a resume thoroughly and ask thoughtful technical questions about a candidate's past work in the phone screen, the phone screen is almost always going to be a painful and embarrassing experience for a lying candidate. And such a candidate will virtually never make it past a reference check. The problem is that most companies are lazy. Hiring managers don't read resumes closely and wing it (i.e. jump on phone screens without preparing). Reference checks? What are those?
  - g8gggu89 11y ago
    It's hilarious that you think this is paranoia. I almost wish I could live in your rose-tinted world, where no one lied ever, references were a good way to judge coding ability, and apparently all new grads magically have relevant references. People can memorize the key features of OOP, but still not be able to use it. So do you not hire new grads? Do you never hire someone with an extensive background in C, because you dare not quiz anyone and you don't want to risk hiring someone who can't really ever get a handle on OOP? Are you going to pay the total cost of all these people, who probably won't last 3 months? What's even sillier is that I bet most people, given the option, would prefer to try solving some small problems for a short period of time if they knew it could help their chances of getting the job. Why wouldn't you if you knew you were competent?

cpitman 11y ago

A resume can say anything. Some of it may even be true. So how are you telling the difference between a good resume and a faked good resume? It's just like spam filtering, both the candidates and companies are in an arms race to try to improve/bypass hiring filters.

7Figures2Commas 11y ago
This level of paranoia is kind of amusing. If you take the time to review a resume thoroughly and ask thoughtful technical questions about a candidate's past work in the phone screen, the phone screen is almost always going to be a painful and embarrassing experience for a lying candidate. And such a candidate will virtually never make it past a reference check. The problem is that most companies are lazy. Hiring managers don't read resumes closely and wing it (i.e. jump on phone screens without preparing). Reference checks? What are those?
- g8gggu89 11y ago
  It's hilarious that you think this is paranoia. I almost wish I could live in your rose-tinted world, where no one lied ever, references were a good way to judge coding ability, and apparently all new grads magically have relevant references. People can memorize the key features of OOP, but still not be able to use it. So do you not hire new grads? Do you never hire someone with an extensive background in C, because you dare not quiz anyone and you don't want to risk hiring someone who can't really ever get a handle on OOP? Are you going to pay the total cost of all these people, who probably won't last 3 months? What's even sillier is that I bet most people, given the option, would prefer to try solving some small problems for a short period of time if they knew it could help their chances of getting the job. Why wouldn't you if you knew you were competent?