4 ms·

You’re misattributing the cause of the stress. Any competitive job opening is intrinsically going to be stressful because there are there are X people interview

You’re misattributing the cause of the stress. Any competitive job opening is intrinsically going to be stressful because there are there are X people interviewing for 1 position and you have to outperform the other (X-1) candidates. The interview format is irrelevant. The only “non stressful” way to do an interview is to hand out $500k/year job offers to every warm bodies that hands you their resume, no questions asked. Sorry, but that’s not going to happen.

Apocryphon 7y ago
I think you're getting at the core of the situation. Ultimately the interview is going to be stressful because it can only end in two ways. But I think there are ways to mitigate it, as suggested by some of the proposals in other comments. Another cause for stress is simply because the whole process is just so damned opaque. There's not just a power asymmetry between hirer and applicant, there's also an information asymmetry. At the end of the day, you don't know what the true criteria were used to judge you. You don't know if you hit a mark and was just passed over in favor of a better candidate, or if you bombed without realizing it, or one of the interviewers simply didn't like you. And at that point it's not simply losing out on the offer, it's losing out the time spent to get a rejection that blandly says that you weren't the right fit. And sometimes they don't even remember to reject you. Like the intrinsic stress of being at the mercy of an employer, it's part of the process that one just has to get used to. But one wonders if there's some better way. Perhaps pre-interview rubrics and post-interview feedback? Make applicants sign a waiver so they can't use it in a lawsuit. At least it'd be more transparent than the status quo.
- gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
  Very much agreed. Opacity is the larger issue for me. Especially considering the disproportionate investment I have to make as an interviewee. And it seems people readily admit the process yields marginally better than random results - so it's pretty puzzling to see people defend it like there's not much to complain about.
gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
I don't agree that interviews for "competitive" jobs are inherently stressful. Insofar as any interview is nerve-wracking - I agree that's unavoidable. The point of hiring is finding anyone that's capable of doing the job, not overseeing a gladiator deathmatch. I get the sense that no one is vulnerable enough to admit that hiring is a toss-up and almost intractable problem. Even more annoying is that experienced and competent workers in industry are usually going to be the people that believe they'd be good at judging candidates when there's little evidence that tech competence translates to hiring competence.

Apocryphon 7y ago

I think you're getting at the core of the situation. Ultimately the interview is going to be stressful because it can only end in two ways. But I think there are ways to mitigate it, as suggested by some of the proposals in other comments. Another cause for stress is simply because the whole process is just so damned opaque. There's not just a power asymmetry between hirer and applicant, there's also an information asymmetry. At the end of the day, you don't know what the true criteria were used to judge you. You don't know if you hit a mark and was just passed over in favor of a better candidate, or if you bombed without realizing it, or one of the interviewers simply didn't like you. And at that point it's not simply losing out on the offer, it's losing out the time spent to get a rejection that blandly says that you weren't the right fit. And sometimes they don't even remember to reject you. Like the intrinsic stress of being at the mercy of an employer, it's part of the process that one just has to get used to. But one wonders if there's some better way. Perhaps pre-interview rubrics and post-interview feedback? Make applicants sign a waiver so they can't use it in a lawsuit. At least it'd be more transparent than the status quo.

gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
Very much agreed. Opacity is the larger issue for me. Especially considering the disproportionate investment I have to make as an interviewee. And it seems people readily admit the process yields marginally better than random results - so it's pretty puzzling to see people defend it like there's not much to complain about.

gnusty_gnurc 7y ago

I don't agree that interviews for "competitive" jobs are inherently stressful. Insofar as any interview is nerve-wracking - I agree that's unavoidable. The point of hiring is finding anyone that's capable of doing the job, not overseeing a gladiator deathmatch. I get the sense that no one is vulnerable enough to admit that hiring is a toss-up and almost intractable problem. Even more annoying is that experienced and competent workers in industry are usually going to be the people that believe they'd be good at judging candidates when there's little evidence that tech competence translates to hiring competence.