3 ms·

I hire exclusively "Senior" devs, and our process is tough to get through. I found the author's details online. Here's my thoughts: > "Senior Coder" His educat

by larrik 7y ago

I hire exclusively "Senior" devs, and our process is tough to get through. I found the author's details online. Here's my thoughts: > "Senior Coder" His education and experience puts him on verge of Senior, but I'd go in expecting not a lot, and probably focus on throwing shit from right field at him and seeing how he react and learn on the fly. The blog post strongly implies he'd just angrily hang up (which is actually rare!) Also, "Coder"? I can see he went from design to PHP to Ruby (via a bootcamp), so I can see why he uses 'Coder' here. I don't want 'Coders', though. I want people who can deliver well architected full stack solutions while being able to mentor junior devs in the process. The article and experience leaves me pretty low expectations of that. The simple fact is that it's WAY WAY worse to hire a bad fit than it is to let TEN great devs walk away.

ryandrake 7y ago
> The simple fact is that it's WAY WAY worse to hire a bad fit than it is to let TEN great devs walk away. This simple statement sums up so much of what is broken about tech hiring. Everyone prides themselves on how they take smart risks and how entrepreneurial they are, and how they “fail fast” and “explore.” Yet when it comes to hiring, all of a sudden it’s “OMG we have to be super conservative! We can’t fire people and one bad hire could ruin us! We must reject 99% of candidates because Risk.” What happened to being bold and risk-taking?
- larrik 7y ago
  In theory that sounds great. But, good/great devs only want to work with good/great devs. You get a bad fit in there that manages to stick around, and your good/great devs start to leave. Then you end up with either only lesser devs or a bunch of devs that hate each other.