5 ms·

A professional communicator tailors their communication to their audience. Stanley's initial explanation was pretty good, but since the recruiter didn't seem to

A professional communicator tailors their communication to their audience. Stanley's initial explanation was pretty good, but since the recruiter didn't seem to understand it, Stanley should have adjusted his approach instead of doubling down.

mquander 9y ago
I'm sure he could have done a better job communicating to the recruiter. You could tell he was slightly irritated, and maybe somehow he could have figured out a different framing that the recruiter would understand. (But note that at the end, he changed his strategy and said simply that he had experience with Linux and UNIX, and the recruiter still didn't care. It really isn't clear whether there was any approach that would have worked.) He did like a 75% good job. But the recruiter did a 0% good job. It's not easy to personally take it upon yourself to make every interaction work perfectly when the other party is trying their hardest to make it fail.
- flukus 9y ago
  > He did like a 75% good job. I'd say a 75% good job for a fresh grad is a really good score. Explaining technical jargon to the computer illiterate is not really something you can learn at school.
  - cushychicken 9y ago
    >Explaining technical jargon to the computer illiterate is not really something you can learn at school ...but, yet, probably should be.
  - nulagrithom 9y ago
    Not to mention he shouldn't have to in this instance. He's talking to someone who's recruiting for technical positions. At a big-name company like this, is it really too much to ask that someone understand the basics of the technology and they're recruiting for? I mean, I explain technical jargon all day long, sure, but I work at a trucking company. Still, my interview process certainly didn't run in to any problem like this, and had it, I can assure you I would've been met with no resistance with the given explanation...
  - isostatic 9y ago
    > Explaining technical jargon to the computer illiterate is not really something you can learn at school. How can you not learn that - how else can you talk to IT/Conputer teachers?
- euyyn 9y ago
  > and the recruiter still didn't care It wasn't not caring; at that point the recruiter didn't believe him about the Unix experience.
deathanatos 9y ago
I'm not sure how much more clear poor Stanley can get: > Recruiter: We're looking for students with experience work on Linux and Unix > Stanley: I have experience working on Linux and UNIX > Recruiter: Your email and resume say Unix-like, which is not exactly UNIX. The recruiter, by the end of this exchange has been given the explanation of why "UNIX-like" is the correct term, why it is being used, and why it is relevant. Stanley has also tried to take a more layman-like approach, and backed off the technical jargon to state "yes, I have that", using the exact terms that the recruiter used, despite them being incorrect. The recruiter's last email contains things that are incorrect, and the response from the recruiter is irrational.
- obstacle1 9y ago
  The recruiter's response isn't irrational. Very clear instructions are being given: put UNIX and Linux on your resume. Not tell me via e-mail. Then candidate goes ahead and 'educates' the recruiter, and puts something other than UNIX (UNIX-like) on the resume. i.e., does not follow instructions. Clear no hire.
  - deathanatos 9y ago
    > Very clear instructions are being given: put UNIX and Linux on your resume. Not tell me via e-mail. Even if that were the recruiter's intent, I don't think it's that clear. At no point in the conversation does the recruiter ever make an explicit request to have a resume with both of those on it. You might think there is an implied request from the recruiter for that, but I do not, and neither, it seems, did Stanley. The only point in the exchange that I can see where the recruiter requests a change to the resume is here: > […] we require having Unix experience. If you have it, could you update your resume and resend? Which he does.
  - flukus 9y ago
    > Clear no hire. You'd rather higher a liar and someone that will follow instructions to the letter, even when they're incorrect? It sounds like you'd hire this useless recruiter.
ajross 9y ago
That's not incorrect, but at the same time it's not improbable that he was essentially trolling at this point and expecting to show this nonsense to his peers (which worked!). Solid engineers, even ones still in school, know who they are and that their skills are valuable. To this candidate the value of any one recruiter is near-zero. He was chasing lols, basically. The story here is that Facebook messed up by having this person front their recruiting efforts, not that Stanley Zhang was denied a job.
HarryHirsch 9y ago
The kid was pretty green (when you apply for internships you usually are), he had no idea that first-line screeners at a big-5 company could be that awful. With age comes experience and low expectations but as an undergraduate you can be excused. You might even demand a minimum standard of discourse, interviews go both ways. Storytime: back then us students were doing a factory tour, we went to Hoechst in Frankfurt (yes, it was that long ago). There was lunch with company research staff in the Jahrhunderthalle (they did have longer time horizons then). Strangely, the majority was from our university. That was puzzling, do they mostly recruit from our university?! They solved the mystery for us, this was a recruitment visit, they wanted us to consider them and wanted to put their best foot forward. Something happened to the employer-employee relationship in the meantime.
- Bahamut 9y ago
  It’s not always that bad. I have had pretty pleasant experiences with Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, and Apple (my current employer). I have also had negative experiences with Google and Amazon as well (the Amazon one puts them squarely in the I-don’t-want-to-ever-interview-with-them-again bucket). On a more relevant comment, I think the student could have been a little smarter in realizing that the recruiter didn’t seem like he/she understood what was really being asked in the position he/she was recruiting for, but I think a lot of respondents on HN forget that people are sometimes held to account for items put in the resume. I remember when I interviewed at Apple in my last interview search, all 3 of the teams I had onsites with held me to account for items I had put on my resume.

mquander 9y ago

I'm sure he could have done a better job communicating to the recruiter. You could tell he was slightly irritated, and maybe somehow he could have figured out a different framing that the recruiter would understand. (But note that at the end, he changed his strategy and said simply that he had experience with Linux and UNIX, and the recruiter still didn't care. It really isn't clear whether there was any approach that would have worked.) He did like a 75% good job. But the recruiter did a 0% good job. It's not easy to personally take it upon yourself to make every interaction work perfectly when the other party is trying their hardest to make it fail.

flukus 9y ago
> He did like a 75% good job. I'd say a 75% good job for a fresh grad is a really good score. Explaining technical jargon to the computer illiterate is not really something you can learn at school.
- cushychicken 9y ago
  >Explaining technical jargon to the computer illiterate is not really something you can learn at school ...but, yet, probably should be.
- nulagrithom 9y ago
  Not to mention he shouldn't have to in this instance. He's talking to someone who's recruiting for technical positions. At a big-name company like this, is it really too much to ask that someone understand the basics of the technology and they're recruiting for? I mean, I explain technical jargon all day long, sure, but I work at a trucking company. Still, my interview process certainly didn't run in to any problem like this, and had it, I can assure you I would've been met with no resistance with the given explanation...
- isostatic 9y ago
  > Explaining technical jargon to the computer illiterate is not really something you can learn at school. How can you not learn that - how else can you talk to IT/Conputer teachers?
euyyn 9y ago
> and the recruiter still didn't care It wasn't not caring; at that point the recruiter didn't believe him about the Unix experience.

deathanatos 9y ago

I'm not sure how much more clear poor Stanley can get: > Recruiter: We're looking for students with experience work on Linux and Unix > Stanley: I have experience working on Linux and UNIX > Recruiter: Your email and resume say Unix-like, which is not exactly UNIX. The recruiter, by the end of this exchange has been given the explanation of why "UNIX-like" is the correct term, why it is being used, and why it is relevant. Stanley has also tried to take a more layman-like approach, and backed off the technical jargon to state "yes, I have that", using the exact terms that the recruiter used, despite them being incorrect. The recruiter's last email contains things that are incorrect, and the response from the recruiter is irrational.

obstacle1 9y ago
The recruiter's response isn't irrational. Very clear instructions are being given: put UNIX and Linux on your resume. Not tell me via e-mail. Then candidate goes ahead and 'educates' the recruiter, and puts something other than UNIX (UNIX-like) on the resume. i.e., does not follow instructions. Clear no hire.
- deathanatos 9y ago
  > Very clear instructions are being given: put UNIX and Linux on your resume. Not tell me via e-mail. Even if that were the recruiter's intent, I don't think it's that clear. At no point in the conversation does the recruiter ever make an explicit request to have a resume with both of those on it. You might think there is an implied request from the recruiter for that, but I do not, and neither, it seems, did Stanley. The only point in the exchange that I can see where the recruiter requests a change to the resume is here: > […] we require having Unix experience. If you have it, could you update your resume and resend? Which he does.
- flukus 9y ago
  > Clear no hire. You'd rather higher a liar and someone that will follow instructions to the letter, even when they're incorrect? It sounds like you'd hire this useless recruiter.

ajross 9y ago

That's not incorrect, but at the same time it's not improbable that he was essentially trolling at this point and expecting to show this nonsense to his peers (which worked!). Solid engineers, even ones still in school, know who they are and that their skills are valuable. To this candidate the value of any one recruiter is near-zero. He was chasing lols, basically. The story here is that Facebook messed up by having this person front their recruiting efforts, not that Stanley Zhang was denied a job.

HarryHirsch 9y ago

The kid was pretty green (when you apply for internships you usually are), he had no idea that first-line screeners at a big-5 company could be that awful. With age comes experience and low expectations but as an undergraduate you can be excused. You might even demand a minimum standard of discourse, interviews go both ways. Storytime: back then us students were doing a factory tour, we went to Hoechst in Frankfurt (yes, it was that long ago). There was lunch with company research staff in the Jahrhunderthalle (they did have longer time horizons then). Strangely, the majority was from our university. That was puzzling, do they mostly recruit from our university?! They solved the mystery for us, this was a recruitment visit, they wanted us to consider them and wanted to put their best foot forward. Something happened to the employer-employee relationship in the meantime.

Bahamut 9y ago
It’s not always that bad. I have had pretty pleasant experiences with Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, and Apple (my current employer). I have also had negative experiences with Google and Amazon as well (the Amazon one puts them squarely in the I-don’t-want-to-ever-interview-with-them-again bucket). On a more relevant comment, I think the student could have been a little smarter in realizing that the recruiter didn’t seem like he/she understood what was really being asked in the position he/she was recruiting for, but I think a lot of respondents on HN forget that people are sometimes held to account for items put in the resume. I remember when I interviewed at Apple in my last interview search, all 3 of the teams I had onsites with held me to account for items I had put on my resume.