4 ms·

Thank you for your last comment :) I'm not sure about how much time is lost for preparation to the interview in the general case (however I saw people recommen

Thank you for your last comment :) I'm not sure about how much time is lost for preparation to the interview in the general case (however I saw people recommending whole books in other comments) but the real issue is that even one day lost to preparing for something that you shouldn't prepare for is way too much! I don't agree in comparing the interview preparation with the work for the Master's degree because, although both will lead somewhere if successful (to a Job offer or to a Master), for the Master you will learn something that is useful or you will advance as a human being (education) while, the preparation for the interview is just that: Preparing for an interview! Why should anybody waste his time like that? I'm not really sure that people that are good at interviews are also good at producing work - this depends on various factors (i.e the interview process - I remember to my horror some legendary interview questions of the type "why is a manhole round"). I believe that such big companies could invent various other, much better methods to hire their stuff. For example after the candidate successfully passes a quick interview with some technical questions (but without any needed preparation) hire them temporarily for some months and evaluate them at the end.

linkregister 10y ago
I hear the temporary-work evaluation advocated on HN frequently, but this is a viewpoint almost exclusively held by junior developers. Those with families would find it difficult to accept the risk they may be terminated after the eval period. Senior developers aren't going to quit their job on the hope they won't be terminated at the end of the evaluation period. Job searching from scratch takes time and is stressful. Companies aren't going to spend half of the eval period training a new hire only to realize many of them aren't good enough (since they didn't screen them in a rigorous interview process). The risks don't align with anyone's incentives except for new grads, who have much less to lose. I hear the argument, "if you know you're good, you'll make it," but if the hiring decision is pushed out to the end of an evaluation period, then the same arbitrary factors that lead interviewers to decline good candidates will also influence the long-eval period method as well. Case in point: Google Finance hires new grads almost exclusively from their pool of interns. Most don't make it, though many are talented. For a student, taking an internship is a no-risk move, since they will be returning to classes anyway. I can't a rational developer with a family accepting a similar arrangement: where the odds suggest she won't make it.
- spapas82 10y ago
  Agreed to your argument about the temporary-evaluation job being only possible for a junior developer and not to somebody that already has a job. However you should also add to them all the cases of senior developers without jobs (yes, such cases do exist) -- a temporary evaluation job is better than nothing. Senior developers that have jobs won't take the risk of leaving their current job and going to an evaluating position. But these people also shouldn't be interviewed -- since they have already have jobs, a talk about their previous projects and work should be enough for anybody to decide if they are good enough.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    Excellent point. Thanks for reminding me of this very important demographic.

linkregister 10y ago

I hear the temporary-work evaluation advocated on HN frequently, but this is a viewpoint almost exclusively held by junior developers. Those with families would find it difficult to accept the risk they may be terminated after the eval period. Senior developers aren't going to quit their job on the hope they won't be terminated at the end of the evaluation period. Job searching from scratch takes time and is stressful. Companies aren't going to spend half of the eval period training a new hire only to realize many of them aren't good enough (since they didn't screen them in a rigorous interview process). The risks don't align with anyone's incentives except for new grads, who have much less to lose. I hear the argument, "if you know you're good, you'll make it," but if the hiring decision is pushed out to the end of an evaluation period, then the same arbitrary factors that lead interviewers to decline good candidates will also influence the long-eval period method as well. Case in point: Google Finance hires new grads almost exclusively from their pool of interns. Most don't make it, though many are talented. For a student, taking an internship is a no-risk move, since they will be returning to classes anyway. I can't a rational developer with a family accepting a similar arrangement: where the odds suggest she won't make it.

spapas82 10y ago
Agreed to your argument about the temporary-evaluation job being only possible for a junior developer and not to somebody that already has a job. However you should also add to them all the cases of senior developers without jobs (yes, such cases do exist) -- a temporary evaluation job is better than nothing. Senior developers that have jobs won't take the risk of leaving their current job and going to an evaluating position. But these people also shouldn't be interviewed -- since they have already have jobs, a talk about their previous projects and work should be enough for anybody to decide if they are good enough.
- linkregister 10y ago
  Excellent point. Thanks for reminding me of this very important demographic.