6 ms·

You want a personalized interview, styled exactly for you ? I would be a 'no' if i were interviewing me. You obviously can program but this makes you appear t

by tty7 9y ago

You want a personalized interview, styled exactly for you ? I would be a 'no' if i were interviewing me. You obviously can program but this makes you appear to be someone who would be difficult to work with.

chii 9y ago
For a homogenous culture of a large corporation, where each dev is a cog in the system, yes, i would agree that this person will not fit. If i had a start-up, i would definitely give this person a good old try, because i can tell that he/she is capable enough to churn out rather advanced projects with complexity higher than just CRUD. Programmers of this type is what i'd call 10x, and one should never dismiss a 10x!
- iabacu 9y ago
  I expect a 10x to be effective, and to know when to pick a fight or not. In this case, it definitively shows a bent for the innovative and smarts, but shows lack of judgement / wisdom. For a 10x, merely completing the test is a lot faster and more effective than trying to go change the process from the outside.
  - adgasf 9y ago
    Maybe he cares about the industry as a whole? By putting his reasons up publicly, he has triggered a debate about the issue. This seems like a very high cost-benefit ratio to me!
- tty7 9y ago
  I would be even more hesitant to hire for a startup! can this person grow with the startup? what happens when we have 10, 20, 30+ engineers - how will they work with the team - will they second guess everything? will everything be an argument? I'm not doubting this persons ability - I'm only responding my opinion of this person based solely on this email.
  - foo101 9y ago
    What kind of startup hesitates to have arguments? I have never been in a startup that fears arguments. Every startup I have been a part of has lively debates and arguments almost every other day. It's only the large slow moving corporate giants where I see such lack of debate and arguments on what is obviously wrong. I would go to the extent of saying that a startup that does not encourage arguments in a harmonious fashion would die very soon anyway. Debates and arguments help in weeding out stupid ideas and focus on what that really matters. This person's email shows that he can have a qualitative argument in a coherent, polite, and non-confrontational fashion - exactly the kind of people you need in startups!
  - swampangel 9y ago
    I might agree if the author hadn't clearly listed their (very reasonable) objections to HackerRank near the start of the email. I wish I had more teammates who could write as effectively.
  - eeZah7Ux 9y ago
    A meaningful and informed debate is more useful to the company than writing a million lines of code. You hire people to solve problems, not churn out code. Code is only a tool to solve a problem.
- fragmede 9y ago
  I'm afraid I have to disagree. They're called 10x engineers because they're 10x as productive, not because you have to take 10x as long to talk them into not using Haskell for a basic CRUD frontend (remember, it's a startup, someone has to do that part - not everything is gonna be sexy to code). If they're too cool to waste a single second conforming to a basic FizzBuzz test to assert that their resume isn't a lie, they're probably way too cool to do anything but write the most glamorous code in the most visible part of the product - which is the last thing, a startup - with too much work and not enough people, needs.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    >If they're too cool to waste a single second conforming to a basic FizzBuzz test I'd be willing to waste 5 minutes tops, unless the employer has put some skin in the game (fizzbuzz is ok - nothing much more than that tho). There's a 1,000 other employers out there who might be a better a fit. I am not going to do a 1 hour, 30 minute or even 15 minute task if they can't at least even be bothered to pick up the phone to talk to me or glance at my github profile. Companies that expect completion of a weekend-filling exercise before granting you an interview are universally run by entitled assholes. You're actually doing yourself a favor by screening them out: they'll be bad to work for, you won't get to work with other 10x engineers and the company will likely achieve nothing impressive anyway.
  - spyspy 9y ago
    > using Haskell > too cool to waste a single second Why are you so quick to extrapolate an entirely new character based on this person not wanting to use HackerRank?
fredley 9y ago
...If "Tells me when I'm doing something in a way that could potentially be improved, in a polite, validated way" falls under your definition of "Difficult to work with", then perhaps he wouldn't want to work with you anyway. However if you want to hire people to just complete tickets as fast as possible, maybe that's a valid reason to reject the candidate.
- tty7 9y ago
  To your first point, yes exactly. The interview is as much mine as it is the candidates. Not necessarily hiring to complete tickets as fast as possible, but some who can take a task and complete with minimal issues. I don't want to be stuck in meetings or arguing in PRs etc.
  - foo101 9y ago
    Would you really want someone to take a task and complete with minimal issues if the task does not add value to the organization or is counterproductive? I don't know about you, but I would not want to hire someone who can take any task and complete with minimal issues. Where I work, one is encouraged to argue about what is not right in the meetings and offer better solutions. This candidate is doing exactly that: Argue why a certain hiring methodology is not effective and what a better alternative is. Considering that this candidate does not just follow orders but challenges the status quo and the fact that he has volunteering-based projects to show makes this author very likely a good fit for my organization.
    - epicide 9y ago
      This is really taking it to an extreme. Just because you don't fight back against some entry test doesn't mean you won't fight the important things. > I don't know about you, but I would not want to hire someone who can take any task and complete with minimal issues. Sorry, I don't want to work with a bunch of pedants. You can have them.
      - foo101 9y ago
dovdovdov 9y ago
Yea, silly people are living in the misconception that companies are any way interested in their personality. While it's really just about to obey, and follow command. People have to understand that they have to fit the soulless masses and have to be tested accordingly...
- tty7 9y ago
  I was only responding specifically to a candidate responding with this email if I had asked them to do a hackerrank. While I can understand your leap to soulless masses - that was not my intention.
  - dovdovdov 9y ago
    My comments are mostly sarcastic and polarized, so don't bother that much. Companies are missing out on a ton of creative talent, but they have to play safe and keep their recruitment costs low. I only understand that from a business point of view. Every other perspective suffers.
- phkahler 9y ago
  If that wasn't sarcasm, you should find a better employer ;-) p.s. Even at the best companies there is some truth in what you say, but it varies a lot.
  - dovdovdov 9y ago
    yep, it was, and yes it's a mix. :)
- fragmede 9y ago
  Filed under sad-but-true. Worse, your ability to code doesn't make you special, and doesn't qualify you as an interesting human being to anyone outside of tech recruiters, and only then if you are able to produce code on demand in front of a whiteboard. Thankfully, as a human being, you are not your ability to code. More importantly though, then it also means that people who can't code are worth just as much as you as human beings (more, if they've managed to learn social graces). If you don't hold it to be true, then code or GTFO. Look for places like the Recurse center in NY that can help you find yourself in the context of being able to code, or more traditional non-traditional approaches like backpacking though India, or taking LSD in the Haight in the 60's (anyone got a time machine?). If you'd like friends (who will be interested in your personality), go find some. Outside of work. Bonus points if you manage to find some that can't code. Hint: companies are interested in your personality - if you come across as this caustic in a phone screen or in person interview, I'd be surprised if you get invited back. (Or at least they should be; Google's current HR woes are their own creation.)
loriverkutya 9y ago
I'm not sharing the view on the difficult the work with part. For me, this just means, that he is not accepting a solution to the problem, explaining why he thinks it is not a good solution and offering another one, which would work for him. Also, he is not dismissing the hackerrank test, but asking to evaluate his skills on a different way too. As far as I see, this is probably the best way to argue with somebody, that their chosen solution to the problem is not the ideal based on your knowledge and experience.
nine_k 9y ago
Depending on who you are, having a personalized interview may make perfect sense. I'd say hiring a senior developer or a team lead should always take it.
- tty7 9y ago
  Agreed, but without knowing the context I responded on this emails face value. I would also worry hiring a team lead/senior dev who appears to be combative from the initial screening
  - falcolas 9y ago
    I would worry about a company who sends lead and senior devs to HackerRank to do junior level programming tests and managers who weren't willing to engage in a conversation.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - lucozade 9y ago
    I wouldn't be concerned with their being combative. I'd be concerned that, without any attempt to make sure they knew the full context, they assumed ignorance or stupidity on the part of the hirer. This kind of approach is fine for a junior. I'd even encourage it because there's an attempt to change the parameters of the problem which is something we often have to teach people as they progress. For a senior position, not so much. I mean, it might be that they're ignorant or stupid, in which case you've probably dodged a bullet when they don't hire you. Or it might be something else entirely. A more sensible approach, in my view, would be to ask what they were looking for with the HackerRank test in a subsequent face to face. If they say that they don't have a better way to determine developer competency then, sure, suggest that you may be able to help with that when you join. If it were me interviewing, I'd be particularly interested in suggestions that a) were developed from successful prior hiring practices and/or b) not so bleeding obvious as "look at their Github page".
lllr_finger 9y ago
This is my first thought as well. It costs a lot of time and money to interview and hire - I do my best to not waste candidates time, and I hope for the same consideration on the other side of the table. Been at two startups and two enterprises and have worked with dozens of great devs who wouldn't respond this way. If I came across this in the wild, I'd reevaluate the parts of the interview I control to see if maybe I could make it less robotic and I'd probably still bring them in to make sure I'm not missing a good dev, but I would be fighting my bias at least a little. There is a small handful of people I've worked with before that would appreciate this approach and their toxic attitudes would prevent me from wanting to work with them again. The interview process can suck, but this is not how I'd recommend standing out from the herd.
danesparza 9y ago
I appreciate you being so honest. Let me be honest in return: You'll never work on interesting, important work until you embrace a worldview that discards bureaucracy. If you want creative solutions to interesting problems, you need to sit up and listen when somebody takes the time to write a thoughtful reply like the OP did. If you want another drone hammering out application code and working overtime out of fear, just keep ignoring folks like the OP. You'll be out of work soon enough, anyway.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mikekchar 9y ago
Interviews are a 2 way street. Candidates have as much right to evaluate the companies that are trying to hire them as the opposite. Not the OP but, absolutely I want a personalised interview! I want the company I'm working for to care about the people they hire -- not to efficiently fill empty seats. Yes, normally that means I tend to work for startups. I'm happy with that. It's fair to say that you want to be able to evaluate potential employees cheaply before you invest a full interview. It's also fair for people to offer ways to do that evaluation rather than running through someone's maze. Neither side needs to accept the other's offer, but there's no need for either side to take it badly. A "no" is quite a good result if the company would otherwise be wasting the candidate's time.

by tty7 9y ago

chii 9y ago

For a homogenous culture of a large corporation, where each dev is a cog in the system, yes, i would agree that this person will not fit. If i had a start-up, i would definitely give this person a good old try, because i can tell that he/she is capable enough to churn out rather advanced projects with complexity higher than just CRUD. Programmers of this type is what i'd call 10x, and one should never dismiss a 10x!

iabacu 9y ago
I expect a 10x to be effective, and to know when to pick a fight or not. In this case, it definitively shows a bent for the innovative and smarts, but shows lack of judgement / wisdom. For a 10x, merely completing the test is a lot faster and more effective than trying to go change the process from the outside.
- adgasf 9y ago
  Maybe he cares about the industry as a whole? By putting his reasons up publicly, he has triggered a debate about the issue. This seems like a very high cost-benefit ratio to me!
tty7 9y ago
I would be even more hesitant to hire for a startup! can this person grow with the startup? what happens when we have 10, 20, 30+ engineers - how will they work with the team - will they second guess everything? will everything be an argument? I'm not doubting this persons ability - I'm only responding my opinion of this person based solely on this email.
- foo101 9y ago
  What kind of startup hesitates to have arguments? I have never been in a startup that fears arguments. Every startup I have been a part of has lively debates and arguments almost every other day. It's only the large slow moving corporate giants where I see such lack of debate and arguments on what is obviously wrong. I would go to the extent of saying that a startup that does not encourage arguments in a harmonious fashion would die very soon anyway. Debates and arguments help in weeding out stupid ideas and focus on what that really matters. This person's email shows that he can have a qualitative argument in a coherent, polite, and non-confrontational fashion - exactly the kind of people you need in startups!
- swampangel 9y ago
  I might agree if the author hadn't clearly listed their (very reasonable) objections to HackerRank near the start of the email. I wish I had more teammates who could write as effectively.
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago
  A meaningful and informed debate is more useful to the company than writing a million lines of code. You hire people to solve problems, not churn out code. Code is only a tool to solve a problem.
fragmede 9y ago
I'm afraid I have to disagree. They're called 10x engineers because they're 10x as productive, not because you have to take 10x as long to talk them into not using Haskell for a basic CRUD frontend (remember, it's a startup, someone has to do that part - not everything is gonna be sexy to code). If they're too cool to waste a single second conforming to a basic FizzBuzz test to assert that their resume isn't a lie, they're probably way too cool to do anything but write the most glamorous code in the most visible part of the product - which is the last thing, a startup - with too much work and not enough people, needs.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  >If they're too cool to waste a single second conforming to a basic FizzBuzz test I'd be willing to waste 5 minutes tops, unless the employer has put some skin in the game (fizzbuzz is ok - nothing much more than that tho). There's a 1,000 other employers out there who might be a better a fit. I am not going to do a 1 hour, 30 minute or even 15 minute task if they can't at least even be bothered to pick up the phone to talk to me or glance at my github profile. Companies that expect completion of a weekend-filling exercise before granting you an interview are universally run by entitled assholes. You're actually doing yourself a favor by screening them out: they'll be bad to work for, you won't get to work with other 10x engineers and the company will likely achieve nothing impressive anyway.
- spyspy 9y ago
  > using Haskell > too cool to waste a single second Why are you so quick to extrapolate an entirely new character based on this person not wanting to use HackerRank?

fredley 9y ago

...If "Tells me when I'm doing something in a way that could potentially be improved, in a polite, validated way" falls under your definition of "Difficult to work with", then perhaps he wouldn't want to work with you anyway. However if you want to hire people to just complete tickets as fast as possible, maybe that's a valid reason to reject the candidate.

tty7 9y ago
To your first point, yes exactly. The interview is as much mine as it is the candidates. Not necessarily hiring to complete tickets as fast as possible, but some who can take a task and complete with minimal issues. I don't want to be stuck in meetings or arguing in PRs etc.
- foo101 9y ago
  Would you really want someone to take a task and complete with minimal issues if the task does not add value to the organization or is counterproductive? I don't know about you, but I would not want to hire someone who can take any task and complete with minimal issues. Where I work, one is encouraged to argue about what is not right in the meetings and offer better solutions. This candidate is doing exactly that: Argue why a certain hiring methodology is not effective and what a better alternative is. Considering that this candidate does not just follow orders but challenges the status quo and the fact that he has volunteering-based projects to show makes this author very likely a good fit for my organization.
  - epicide 9y ago
    This is really taking it to an extreme. Just because you don't fight back against some entry test doesn't mean you won't fight the important things. > I don't know about you, but I would not want to hire someone who can take any task and complete with minimal issues. Sorry, I don't want to work with a bunch of pedants. You can have them.
    - foo101 9y ago

dovdovdov 9y ago

Yea, silly people are living in the misconception that companies are any way interested in their personality. While it's really just about to obey, and follow command. People have to understand that they have to fit the soulless masses and have to be tested accordingly...

tty7 9y ago
I was only responding specifically to a candidate responding with this email if I had asked them to do a hackerrank. While I can understand your leap to soulless masses - that was not my intention.
- dovdovdov 9y ago
  My comments are mostly sarcastic and polarized, so don't bother that much. Companies are missing out on a ton of creative talent, but they have to play safe and keep their recruitment costs low. I only understand that from a business point of view. Every other perspective suffers.
phkahler 9y ago
If that wasn't sarcasm, you should find a better employer ;-) p.s. Even at the best companies there is some truth in what you say, but it varies a lot.
- dovdovdov 9y ago
  yep, it was, and yes it's a mix. :)
fragmede 9y ago
Filed under sad-but-true. Worse, your ability to code doesn't make you special, and doesn't qualify you as an interesting human being to anyone outside of tech recruiters, and only then if you are able to produce code on demand in front of a whiteboard. Thankfully, as a human being, you are not your ability to code. More importantly though, then it also means that people who can't code are worth just as much as you as human beings (more, if they've managed to learn social graces). If you don't hold it to be true, then code or GTFO. Look for places like the Recurse center in NY that can help you find yourself in the context of being able to code, or more traditional non-traditional approaches like backpacking though India, or taking LSD in the Haight in the 60's (anyone got a time machine?). If you'd like friends (who will be interested in your personality), go find some. Outside of work. Bonus points if you manage to find some that can't code. Hint: companies are interested in your personality - if you come across as this caustic in a phone screen or in person interview, I'd be surprised if you get invited back. (Or at least they should be; Google's current HR woes are their own creation.)

loriverkutya 9y ago

I'm not sharing the view on the difficult the work with part. For me, this just means, that he is not accepting a solution to the problem, explaining why he thinks it is not a good solution and offering another one, which would work for him. Also, he is not dismissing the hackerrank test, but asking to evaluate his skills on a different way too. As far as I see, this is probably the best way to argue with somebody, that their chosen solution to the problem is not the ideal based on your knowledge and experience.

nine_k 9y ago

Depending on who you are, having a personalized interview may make perfect sense. I'd say hiring a senior developer or a team lead should always take it.

tty7 9y ago
Agreed, but without knowing the context I responded on this emails face value. I would also worry hiring a team lead/senior dev who appears to be combative from the initial screening
- falcolas 9y ago
  I would worry about a company who sends lead and senior devs to HackerRank to do junior level programming tests and managers who weren't willing to engage in a conversation.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- lucozade 9y ago
  I wouldn't be concerned with their being combative. I'd be concerned that, without any attempt to make sure they knew the full context, they assumed ignorance or stupidity on the part of the hirer. This kind of approach is fine for a junior. I'd even encourage it because there's an attempt to change the parameters of the problem which is something we often have to teach people as they progress. For a senior position, not so much. I mean, it might be that they're ignorant or stupid, in which case you've probably dodged a bullet when they don't hire you. Or it might be something else entirely. A more sensible approach, in my view, would be to ask what they were looking for with the HackerRank test in a subsequent face to face. If they say that they don't have a better way to determine developer competency then, sure, suggest that you may be able to help with that when you join. If it were me interviewing, I'd be particularly interested in suggestions that a) were developed from successful prior hiring practices and/or b) not so bleeding obvious as "look at their Github page".

lllr_finger 9y ago

This is my first thought as well. It costs a lot of time and money to interview and hire - I do my best to not waste candidates time, and I hope for the same consideration on the other side of the table. Been at two startups and two enterprises and have worked with dozens of great devs who wouldn't respond this way. If I came across this in the wild, I'd reevaluate the parts of the interview I control to see if maybe I could make it less robotic and I'd probably still bring them in to make sure I'm not missing a good dev, but I would be fighting my bias at least a little. There is a small handful of people I've worked with before that would appreciate this approach and their toxic attitudes would prevent me from wanting to work with them again. The interview process can suck, but this is not how I'd recommend standing out from the herd.

danesparza 9y ago

I appreciate you being so honest. Let me be honest in return: You'll never work on interesting, important work until you embrace a worldview that discards bureaucracy. If you want creative solutions to interesting problems, you need to sit up and listen when somebody takes the time to write a thoughtful reply like the OP did. If you want another drone hammering out application code and working overtime out of fear, just keep ignoring folks like the OP. You'll be out of work soon enough, anyway.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mikekchar 9y ago

Interviews are a 2 way street. Candidates have as much right to evaluate the companies that are trying to hire them as the opposite. Not the OP but, absolutely I want a personalised interview! I want the company I'm working for to care about the people they hire -- not to efficiently fill empty seats. Yes, normally that means I tend to work for startups. I'm happy with that. It's fair to say that you want to be able to evaluate potential employees cheaply before you invest a full interview. It's also fair for people to offer ways to do that evaluation rather than running through someone's maze. Neither side needs to accept the other's offer, but there's no need for either side to take it badly. A "no" is quite a good result if the company would otherwise be wasting the candidate's time.