4 ms·

> But the principle is the same: companies are awash in candidates and can afford to be as picky as they need to be to put together their special-snowflake soft

> But the principle is the same: companies are awash in candidates and can afford to be as picky as they need to be to put together their special-snowflake software teams. We're awash in candidates, alright. Vastly unqualified candidates. For the same reason we have to treat applicants with healthy skepticism, shelters must because there are far too many folks who will adopt a pet and mistreat or simply return it.

vonmoltke 8y ago
> We're awash in candidates, alright. Vastly unqualified candidates. Have you ever considered that your resume screening process sucks? I see a lot of "meh" candidates, but not many who are "vastly underqualified".
- pkaye 8y ago
  How do you differentiate between "meh" candidates and those "vastly underqualified"?
  - vonmoltke 8y ago
    "Meh" candidates can eventually solve the problems given with a solution that works, albeit one that is messy and unoptimized. "Vastly underqualified" candidates can barely stitch together working programs and are incapable of solving problems that do not have an API call in the libraries they are familiar with.
- mieseratte 8y ago
  I say candidate to mean "someone who submitted an application" of which there are many, many unqualified. By the time they hit onsite, there aren't too many.
  - vonmoltke 8y ago
    I don't think it is appropriate to make judgements like "vastly unqualified" based solely on a resume, unless you are seeing something like people with absolutely no programming experience applying for senior roles (which, BTW, is something I very rarely see myself).
    - mieseratte 8y ago
      > unless you are seeing something like people with absolutely no programming experience applying for senior roles Yeah, I see things like folks with a twelve-week bootcamp and no prior experience applying for a full-stack position aimed at junior-to-mid candidates. That's clearly a vastly under qualified applicant. A close friend and mentor was on the advisory board for one of the coding camps and had me do mock interviews. The quality is atrocious, and only those with prior experience end up coming out worth a damn. I've seen grown men break down and cry because FizzBuzz was too much for them and, yes, I made sure they had prior knowledge of the relevant mathematical operations and syntax. Further, there are a lot of sub-par contracting organizations. Warm-body-in-seat type operations. This further results in lots of unqualified applicants, but they're harder to filter out because on paper they look decent when in reality they have on years experience ten times over. The conversations usually turn sour when you simply cannot pay a senior salary to someone with the knowledge and skillset of, at best, a good junior. > I don't think it is appropriate to make judgements like "vastly unqualified" based solely on a resume, > (which, BTW, is something I very rarely see myself). FWIW, I don't find replying in such a manner to be very appropriate. It almost seems as if I'm being accused of conversing in bad faith. I have my experiences in my neck of the woods, and you yours. Unless we known one another, you don't know what I've seen.

vonmoltke 8y ago

> We're awash in candidates, alright. Vastly unqualified candidates. Have you ever considered that your resume screening process sucks? I see a lot of "meh" candidates, but not many who are "vastly underqualified".

pkaye 8y ago
How do you differentiate between "meh" candidates and those "vastly underqualified"?
- vonmoltke 8y ago
  "Meh" candidates can eventually solve the problems given with a solution that works, albeit one that is messy and unoptimized. "Vastly underqualified" candidates can barely stitch together working programs and are incapable of solving problems that do not have an API call in the libraries they are familiar with.
mieseratte 8y ago
I say candidate to mean "someone who submitted an application" of which there are many, many unqualified. By the time they hit onsite, there aren't too many.
- vonmoltke 8y ago
  I don't think it is appropriate to make judgements like "vastly unqualified" based solely on a resume, unless you are seeing something like people with absolutely no programming experience applying for senior roles (which, BTW, is something I very rarely see myself).
  - mieseratte 8y ago
    > unless you are seeing something like people with absolutely no programming experience applying for senior roles Yeah, I see things like folks with a twelve-week bootcamp and no prior experience applying for a full-stack position aimed at junior-to-mid candidates. That's clearly a vastly under qualified applicant. A close friend and mentor was on the advisory board for one of the coding camps and had me do mock interviews. The quality is atrocious, and only those with prior experience end up coming out worth a damn. I've seen grown men break down and cry because FizzBuzz was too much for them and, yes, I made sure they had prior knowledge of the relevant mathematical operations and syntax. Further, there are a lot of sub-par contracting organizations. Warm-body-in-seat type operations. This further results in lots of unqualified applicants, but they're harder to filter out because on paper they look decent when in reality they have on years experience ten times over. The conversations usually turn sour when you simply cannot pay a senior salary to someone with the knowledge and skillset of, at best, a good junior. > I don't think it is appropriate to make judgements like "vastly unqualified" based solely on a resume, > (which, BTW, is something I very rarely see myself). FWIW, I don't find replying in such a manner to be very appropriate. It almost seems as if I'm being accused of conversing in bad faith. I have my experiences in my neck of the woods, and you yours. Unless we known one another, you don't know what I've seen.