4 ms·

A lot of real people feel this way while looking for jobs. I did for a while.

ethbro 9y ago
Generally because employers, either through lack of effort or deliberate attempt to shield feelings, are never clear with people about why they weren't hired after an interview. "You flubbed the algorithm question. We're looking for someone with a stronger CS background." Done. Clean and ultimately more kind. ... Unless a large number of candidates actually are getting rejected for sexist / racist / ageist reasons masked behind culture fit concerns, and the company obviously doesn't want to admit to that?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- koolba 9y ago
  And nothing but fodder for a lawsuit. There's zero to gain for the employer and plenty to lose by giving any details to a rejected candidate.
- civilian 9y ago
  The main reason that candidates don't get honest feedback is to limit liability-- companies don't want hiring managers to say something horrible or misphrase something and then have them be liable for violating hiring discrimination laws.
- 0xcde4c3db 9y ago
  Having been involved a bit with screening candidates, I'm not even convinced that interviewers or hiring managers are routinely clear with themselves about why they do or don't hire somebody. It seems more like a feeling that is rationalized afterward.
  - benjamincburns 9y ago
    I strongly agree that this is true in a lot of cases, and the ahead-of-time rationalization of limiting liability helps to perpetuate the lack of necessity of a clear, defensible reason for rejection. I say this as a hiring manager, by the way, knowing full well that nothing involving the hiring process is as clean and straightforward as anyone involved wants it to be.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  > You flubbed the algorithm question. We're looking for someone with a stronger CS background. When Triplebyte wanted me to go through their experimental interview, part of what I was asked was to "talk about" hash tables and, later, red-black trees. That seemed vague, but, prompted for what they were looking for, I covered the following: - Hash tables are the generalization of arrays to non-integer indices. They have the access characteristics of arrays. They store data in a backing array. - When two keys collide, the hash table can store them in a linked list (the "buckets" approach). - If you don't like that, you can do quadratic probing, in which you repeatedly square an offset from the true hash value for that key, until you find a space in the backing array that is not currently full. - Quadratic probing has the disadvantage that when you delete an entry from the table, you have to leave a placeholder in the backing array saying "there used to be something here!" - If you generate an index into the backing array which is greater than its size, you would usually deal with that by taking the index modulus the size of the backing array. - If the backing array gets too full, you would allocate a new backing array of double the size and rehash everything into the new backing array. You double the size so that amortized insert time stays constant. - Amortized time complexity refers to the average amount of time taken for a set of completed operations. - Red-black trees are a type of self-balancing binary tree with the property that all paths root to leaf are within a factor of two in terms of length. I can't say much more about them and wouldn't be able to write one off the top of my head. The feedback they gave me was that, if I wanted to continue working with them, my highest priority should be to improve my knowledge of hash tables and red-black trees. And sure, there's plenty of room for improvement in terms of red-black trees. But I am mystified as to what else they wanted for hash tables.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - isuckatcoding 9y ago
    Yes because we all use red-black trees everyday. SMH.
  - sidlls 9y ago
    Were you interviewing for a position in which you'd regularly have to implement hash tables or red black trees (possibly with some novel twists) or other algorithms? If not, why were you even asked these questions?
- mack1001 9y ago
  It's easier to have a relatively objective interviewing process for technical roles. OTOH management/sales roles are usually decided on subjective criteria and on how much confidence the interviewee projects.
  - WaxProlix 9y ago
    Except that the process which exists for technical roles has been shown time and again to be pretty bad, too.
- t0mbstone 9y ago
  I've seen someone (who was highly skilled and highly qualified for the job) not get hired, simply because one of the interviewers on the board interpreted the candidate's well-founded confidence as arrogance. They deemed the candidate as a "bad culture fit" as a result. The interviewer then recommended that we hire one of his friends instead. I've seen this sort of thing happen all the time, at multiple companies.
- ohjeez 9y ago
  And it isn't usually that hard to do: https://insights.hpe.com/articles/what-to-tell-that-it-job-applicant-kindly-when-the-answer-is-no-1706.html https://insights.hpe.com/articles/what-to-tell-that-it-job-a... .
namelezz 9y ago
Hiring in this country is a joke.
- dogruck 9y ago
  Which country does it best?
benbenolson 9y ago
A few years ago, I applied to work for Cisco, straight out of getting my Bachelor's in CS. I was extremely thankful that the hiring manager was up-front with me. She told me exactly what my lack of knowledge was, what I needed to work on, and wished me a good day. I came away from the experience feeling a little disappointed at the rejection, but ultimately encouraged and motivated to learn more about the subjects mentioned.
- quickthrower2 9y ago
  Problem is: how do you know she is right? The subjects mention may be irrelevant to another employer. Due diligence is recommended to see what the market is looking for.
quickthrower2 9y ago
For ambitious people it's very likely. You apply for more senior or ambitious jobs. As a result your probability of success is less per application. There will be many near misses before landing an offer you choose to accept.

Generally because employers, either through lack of effort or deliberate attempt to shield feelings, are never clear with people about why they weren't hired after an interview. "You flubbed the algorithm question. We're looking for someone with a stronger CS background." Done. Clean and ultimately more kind. ... Unless a large number of candidates actually are getting rejected for sexist / racist / ageist reasons masked behind culture fit concerns, and the company obviously doesn't want to admit to that?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
koolba 9y ago
And nothing but fodder for a lawsuit. There's zero to gain for the employer and plenty to lose by giving any details to a rejected candidate.
civilian 9y ago
The main reason that candidates don't get honest feedback is to limit liability-- companies don't want hiring managers to say something horrible or misphrase something and then have them be liable for violating hiring discrimination laws.
0xcde4c3db 9y ago
Having been involved a bit with screening candidates, I'm not even convinced that interviewers or hiring managers are routinely clear with themselves about why they do or don't hire somebody. It seems more like a feeling that is rationalized afterward.
- benjamincburns 9y ago
  I strongly agree that this is true in a lot of cases, and the ahead-of-time rationalization of limiting liability helps to perpetuate the lack of necessity of a clear, defensible reason for rejection. I say this as a hiring manager, by the way, knowing full well that nothing involving the hiring process is as clean and straightforward as anyone involved wants it to be.
thaumasiotes 9y ago
> You flubbed the algorithm question. We're looking for someone with a stronger CS background. When Triplebyte wanted me to go through their experimental interview, part of what I was asked was to "talk about" hash tables and, later, red-black trees. That seemed vague, but, prompted for what they were looking for, I covered the following: - Hash tables are the generalization of arrays to non-integer indices. They have the access characteristics of arrays. They store data in a backing array. - When two keys collide, the hash table can store them in a linked list (the "buckets" approach). - If you don't like that, you can do quadratic probing, in which you repeatedly square an offset from the true hash value for that key, until you find a space in the backing array that is not currently full. - Quadratic probing has the disadvantage that when you delete an entry from the table, you have to leave a placeholder in the backing array saying "there used to be something here!" - If you generate an index into the backing array which is greater than its size, you would usually deal with that by taking the index modulus the size of the backing array. - If the backing array gets too full, you would allocate a new backing array of double the size and rehash everything into the new backing array. You double the size so that amortized insert time stays constant. - Amortized time complexity refers to the average amount of time taken for a set of completed operations. - Red-black trees are a type of self-balancing binary tree with the property that all paths root to leaf are within a factor of two in terms of length. I can't say much more about them and wouldn't be able to write one off the top of my head. The feedback they gave me was that, if I wanted to continue working with them, my highest priority should be to improve my knowledge of hash tables and red-black trees. And sure, there's plenty of room for improvement in terms of red-black trees. But I am mystified as to what else they wanted for hash tables.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- isuckatcoding 9y ago
  Yes because we all use red-black trees everyday. SMH.
- sidlls 9y ago
  Were you interviewing for a position in which you'd regularly have to implement hash tables or red black trees (possibly with some novel twists) or other algorithms? If not, why were you even asked these questions?
mack1001 9y ago
It's easier to have a relatively objective interviewing process for technical roles. OTOH management/sales roles are usually decided on subjective criteria and on how much confidence the interviewee projects.
- WaxProlix 9y ago
  Except that the process which exists for technical roles has been shown time and again to be pretty bad, too.
t0mbstone 9y ago
I've seen someone (who was highly skilled and highly qualified for the job) not get hired, simply because one of the interviewers on the board interpreted the candidate's well-founded confidence as arrogance. They deemed the candidate as a "bad culture fit" as a result. The interviewer then recommended that we hire one of his friends instead. I've seen this sort of thing happen all the time, at multiple companies.
ohjeez 9y ago
And it isn't usually that hard to do: https://insights.hpe.com/articles/what-to-tell-that-it-job-applicant-kindly-when-the-answer-is-no-1706.html https://insights.hpe.com/articles/what-to-tell-that-it-job-a... .

namelezz 9y ago

Hiring in this country is a joke.

dogruck 9y ago
Which country does it best?

benbenolson 9y ago

A few years ago, I applied to work for Cisco, straight out of getting my Bachelor's in CS. I was extremely thankful that the hiring manager was up-front with me. She told me exactly what my lack of knowledge was, what I needed to work on, and wished me a good day. I came away from the experience feeling a little disappointed at the rejection, but ultimately encouraged and motivated to learn more about the subjects mentioned.

quickthrower2 9y ago
Problem is: how do you know she is right? The subjects mention may be irrelevant to another employer. Due diligence is recommended to see what the market is looking for.

quickthrower2 9y ago

For ambitious people it's very likely. You apply for more senior or ambitious jobs. As a result your probability of success is less per application. There will be many near misses before landing an offer you choose to accept.