3 ms·
It's wrong if the company benefits in any way from your interview/probationary period. (Probationary periods are just wrong period IMHO.) Interviewing is a huge
by newobj 8y ago
It's wrong if the company benefits in any way from your interview/probationary period. (Probationary periods are just wrong period IMHO.) Interviewing is a huge burden to most companies, so if your interview questions are entirely synthetic, it's ONLY a cost to the company to interview you, which they should naturally want to minimize on their own. But you know what's even more expensive than interviewing? Dealing with bad hires. So I think a company is within its rights to do it what takes to ensure a quality hire. But they should not gain any benefit from this process - doing so is crossing a line - other than potentially being able to hire you, or failing that, at least make a good impression on you.
- mywittyname 8y agoYou're not refuting my point though. I agree they should do what they can to ensure they get a good hire, but I also thing they should do the minimum amount necessary to do such. I've worked on many great teams whose interview process was little more than asking intelligent, pointed questions about previous work experience. Of course, this puts the onus on the interviewer to know what they are doing. I personally keep a list of elementary questions about various technologies for interviewing. So when someone says they've worked with ElasticSearch or Python, I ask them how to do a few rudimentary tasks in a few of them and can pretty quickly tell how much they've been fibbing. I've had companies both accept and reject my hiring recommendations, and every person that's been hired despite my objection has been poor quality. So I know at least anecdotally that it's a viable strategy and it only takes ~30 minutes per person.
- newobj 8y agoI wasn't trying to refute your point... in fact I think I was mostly agreeing with you?
- mywittyname 8y agoSeems like we agree on the what, but we're debating the how.