3 ms·
2 and 3 are relevant and generally applicable, and basically boil down to: 2. HR had arbitrary unreasonable box-ticking requirements rather than assessing the
by lucideer 9y ago
2 and 3 are relevant and generally applicable, and basically boil down to:
2. HR had arbitrary unreasonable box-ticking requirements rather than assessing the candidate intelligently
3. HR was hopelessly disorganised
The first one however seems subjective. Maybe the candidate wasn't suitable for the role - the recruiter thinks he was the best frontender he'd found that year, the tech lead disagreed with his assessment. It does seem like the company HR handled things badly afterwards (incompetent HR is a bit of a theme here) but the original reason for rejection might have been valid.
- mixmastamyk 9y agoInterviewer didn’t have context, says in the article.
- PeterisP 9y agoIn the first case, the tech lead discarded the candidate without looking at him/her seriously or interviewing, just by looking for a few minutes at the submitted piece of decent code and finding it somewhat unusual.
- misja111 9y agoThe article said that the interviewer looked for 10 minutes at the code. If it was really just a simple assignment and the candidate came up with a complex homemade framework then that is enough time to cast some very serious doubts.