5 ms·

As far as practice interviews: Companies always take the full time they scheduled for your interview no matter when they've decided you failed. Then a week lat

by sean2 8y ago

As far as practice interviews: Companies always take the full time they scheduled for your interview no matter when they've decided you failed. Then a week later they may drop you an email informing you that they've chosen to pass on your candidacy. They then ignore or deny any request for feedback (something about liability). So, interviewing with most companies may never inform you about why you're getting rejected. Last time I searched for a new position, I did about a dozen interviews, failed each one, still no idea why. That is why I'll consider a practice interview before my next job search.

pitaj 8y ago
> They then ignore or deny any request for feedback (something about liability). One of the many unintended consequences of anti-discrimination law
scarejunba 8y ago
No. That's not true. Many companies will early exit and we'll give feedback that indicates what broad areas weren't a good fit. We won't say "You should have used a probabilistic data structure here instead of a standard set" but we'll say "We expected a different experience from our whiteboard coding sessions." And then maybe something about the interview process being imperfect but the best that we have available to determine competency. So you'll know that it was whiteboard coding you didn't do well at rather than architecture design or culture fit or anything else. That's cleared by recruiting, HR, and legal from the SF startup I work at. I did it today.
- pmiller2 8y ago
  Such feedback, while welcome, in my mind, is so vague as to be unactionable. Unactionable feedback is essentials useless to me as a candidate. If Triplebyte can give good, specific feedback without being afraid of being sued, why can’t employers? As long as the feedback is truthful and only about the technical[0] aspects, there should be no reason others can’t too. —- [0]: Granted, there’s always the nebulous “not a culture fit” to deal with, but that’s always going to be a thing.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    Because a non-trivial number of people are incapable of accepting feedback (even if only to discard later) and react in anger. That's unpleasant for everyone. Best to avoid it. That's a safe neutral ground.
    - pmiller2 8y ago
      Right. It's a tragedy of the commons type situation. Ultimately, everyone would be better off if companies would tell candidates why they were rejected, but nobody does, because it avoids a slightly unpleasant situation for no immediate benefit. Short-termism at its finest.
      - scarejunba 8y ago
        Early on in my career I actually did give someone some advice post an interview and what to read up on etc. He sent me an email thanking me. Then six months later he thanked me saying he got a job at what is now a famous startup after studying up on the topics I recommended (algos and data structures in general and the basics in particular - he wasn't a CS major). I was proud of that one but man would it have been sensible of me to have asked him to re-apply at that time. I love working with people with that attitude. Unfortunately, I had my first unpleasant interaction shortly after that and then have never given pointed feedback ever after. Is that really short-termism? I don't see the short-term/long-term implications. I only see that there's a lack of information and no way to prove that one is trustworthy enough to warrant the interaction.
        pmiller2 8y ago
        Yes, it absolutely is short-termism. Denying candidates feedback they can use to improve means its harder for them to improve. Granted, not all will use such information to actually get better, but none will if you don’t give them the information to begin with. I think we can agree that having better candidates is, well, better in the long term, right? Also, people who will react angrily aren’t going to have a favorable impression of the company anyway. Nor are people who are rejected without a real reason likely to. But, if you give someone a reason and they use it to actually get a job, that can stick with them. You can’t even buy that kind of goodwill. I guarantee you could contact that person you helped about a job opportunity in the future, and they would at least seriously consider it, unlike the tens of recruiter spams they probably get monthly. As for proving one is trustworthy enough to warrant the interaction,” that’s your fundamental problem right there. Employers have all the power in the employment relationship, so they owe a duty to the weaker side, provided there is no material risk. It takes probably 10 or 20 minutes to give someone who’s given you at least an entire day of their irreplaceable time a detailed feedback note. The candidate has invested far more time than any individual at the company. A couple of temporarily bruised egos and some hurt feelings is not a material risk. To anyone who reacts angrily, cut them off, block them from contacting you, and move on; you don’t want those people as candidates in the future, anyway. In other words, suck it up, buttercup.
- camdenlock 8y ago
  > "We expected a different experience from our whiteboard coding sessions." Damn, that made my skin crawl. If I heard that, I'd be thanking my lucky stars that I didn't get hired by such a company.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    Oh ouch. That was not the intention but I can be socially awkward at times. Perhaps you can help me understand what I said that was wrong? Happy to adjust the way I communicate so long as I can express that it was writing out code that didn't work as opposed to architecture and/or technical communication.
    - mattkrause 8y ago
      For me, it has two problems. The tone has this anodyne corporate PR flavor: whiteboarding isn’t really collaborative (“our”), nor is it an “experience” in the way that, say, hang-gliding is. It’s also not particularly actionable. Obviously, it implies that you need to brush up on either a) algorithms, b) coding, or c) investigating a problem. However, you could just come out and say that. Some specific feedback on the problems that the applicant “failed” would be incredibly nice but is probably too much work. However, some general suggestions for how to improve would also make this feel more constructive, along with some instructions (if any) on how to reapply. Possibly something like “We felt that your knowledge of data structures was a weakness. Many of our engineers swear by Skiena’s Algorithm Design Manual, or.... If you are still interested in ABC Corp, we would be happy to consider a new application in six months.”
      - scarejunba 8y ago
        I see. I used to do that but someone told me that telling them about books that were common knowledge just sounded condescending. What I’m trying to express here is also that we just failed to acquire positive signal. We recognize that our process is imperfect (and I say this) so I don’t want to tell them there’s a weakness or anything just a mismatch of expectations. But point taken and I’ll bias back in that direction. Without any irony, thanks for the feedback ;)

by sean2 8y ago

pitaj 8y ago

> They then ignore or deny any request for feedback (something about liability). One of the many unintended consequences of anti-discrimination law

scarejunba 8y ago

No. That's not true. Many companies will early exit and we'll give feedback that indicates what broad areas weren't a good fit. We won't say "You should have used a probabilistic data structure here instead of a standard set" but we'll say "We expected a different experience from our whiteboard coding sessions." And then maybe something about the interview process being imperfect but the best that we have available to determine competency. So you'll know that it was whiteboard coding you didn't do well at rather than architecture design or culture fit or anything else. That's cleared by recruiting, HR, and legal from the SF startup I work at. I did it today.

pmiller2 8y ago
Such feedback, while welcome, in my mind, is so vague as to be unactionable. Unactionable feedback is essentials useless to me as a candidate. If Triplebyte can give good, specific feedback without being afraid of being sued, why can’t employers? As long as the feedback is truthful and only about the technical[0] aspects, there should be no reason others can’t too. —- [0]: Granted, there’s always the nebulous “not a culture fit” to deal with, but that’s always going to be a thing.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  Because a non-trivial number of people are incapable of accepting feedback (even if only to discard later) and react in anger. That's unpleasant for everyone. Best to avoid it. That's a safe neutral ground.
  - pmiller2 8y ago
    Right. It's a tragedy of the commons type situation. Ultimately, everyone would be better off if companies would tell candidates why they were rejected, but nobody does, because it avoids a slightly unpleasant situation for no immediate benefit. Short-termism at its finest.
    - scarejunba 8y ago
      Early on in my career I actually did give someone some advice post an interview and what to read up on etc. He sent me an email thanking me. Then six months later he thanked me saying he got a job at what is now a famous startup after studying up on the topics I recommended (algos and data structures in general and the basics in particular - he wasn't a CS major). I was proud of that one but man would it have been sensible of me to have asked him to re-apply at that time. I love working with people with that attitude. Unfortunately, I had my first unpleasant interaction shortly after that and then have never given pointed feedback ever after. Is that really short-termism? I don't see the short-term/long-term implications. I only see that there's a lack of information and no way to prove that one is trustworthy enough to warrant the interaction.
      - pmiller2 8y ago
        Yes, it absolutely is short-termism. Denying candidates feedback they can use to improve means its harder for them to improve. Granted, not all will use such information to actually get better, but none will if you don’t give them the information to begin with. I think we can agree that having better candidates is, well, better in the long term, right? Also, people who will react angrily aren’t going to have a favorable impression of the company anyway. Nor are people who are rejected without a real reason likely to. But, if you give someone a reason and they use it to actually get a job, that can stick with them. You can’t even buy that kind of goodwill. I guarantee you could contact that person you helped about a job opportunity in the future, and they would at least seriously consider it, unlike the tens of recruiter spams they probably get monthly. As for proving one is trustworthy enough to warrant the interaction,” that’s your fundamental problem right there. Employers have all the power in the employment relationship, so they owe a duty to the weaker side, provided there is no material risk. It takes probably 10 or 20 minutes to give someone who’s given you at least an entire day of their irreplaceable time a detailed feedback note. The candidate has invested far more time than any individual at the company. A couple of temporarily bruised egos and some hurt feelings is not a material risk. To anyone who reacts angrily, cut them off, block them from contacting you, and move on; you don’t want those people as candidates in the future, anyway. In other words, suck it up, buttercup.
camdenlock 8y ago
> "We expected a different experience from our whiteboard coding sessions." Damn, that made my skin crawl. If I heard that, I'd be thanking my lucky stars that I didn't get hired by such a company.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  Oh ouch. That was not the intention but I can be socially awkward at times. Perhaps you can help me understand what I said that was wrong? Happy to adjust the way I communicate so long as I can express that it was writing out code that didn't work as opposed to architecture and/or technical communication.
  - mattkrause 8y ago
    For me, it has two problems. The tone has this anodyne corporate PR flavor: whiteboarding isn’t really collaborative (“our”), nor is it an “experience” in the way that, say, hang-gliding is. It’s also not particularly actionable. Obviously, it implies that you need to brush up on either a) algorithms, b) coding, or c) investigating a problem. However, you could just come out and say that. Some specific feedback on the problems that the applicant “failed” would be incredibly nice but is probably too much work. However, some general suggestions for how to improve would also make this feel more constructive, along with some instructions (if any) on how to reapply. Possibly something like “We felt that your knowledge of data structures was a weakness. Many of our engineers swear by Skiena’s Algorithm Design Manual, or.... If you are still interested in ABC Corp, we would be happy to consider a new application in six months.”
    - scarejunba 8y ago
      I see. I used to do that but someone told me that telling them about books that were common knowledge just sounded condescending. What I’m trying to express here is also that we just failed to acquire positive signal. We recognize that our process is imperfect (and I say this) so I don’t want to tell them there’s a weakness or anything just a mismatch of expectations. But point taken and I’ll bias back in that direction. Without any irony, thanks for the feedback ;)