3 ms·

This is just one of the many side-effects of money-oriented society. People work to earn money. Not because they love work. 1. Business owner just want paying

by croh 7y ago

This is just one of the many side-effects of money-oriented society. People work to earn money. Not because they love work. 1. Business owner just want paying customers, they don't care about product. 2. Your tech-lead/manager/solution-architect has stop coding for last 15 years (or never did it). So s/he choose the most hyped stack (or js-framework-of-week). Now to justify his decision, he needs team with that skill or he put blame on HR 3. HR doesn't understand damn thing neither they care for HUMANS. Their job is finding RESOURCE. So they just look for keywords in resume and contact each and every single candidate having keywords in resume. 4. Candidate deeply hate computer science fundamentals. And believe that being hacker is cool and can learn lot of money/girl/boys/fame. So he tries to show off himself by somehow adding hyped keywords in resume ( or most of time copy-pasting resume). Now after all this, if product succeeds believe me amigo, you're very lucky or someone just robbed by your product.

krasicki 7y ago
1. is not always true nor is it germane to the question at hand. 2. is a highly unlikely scenario. Ecosystems are complex beasts at face value. Generally speaking the decision-makers stick close to the trajectory of their comfort zones. You've packed a lot of opinionated assumptions here that I'll pass on biting. 3. HR has dissolved in the past decade or so. You are lucky if there is a HUMAN aspect to HR (it can be, far too often, a keyword parsing exercise) AND when there is a HUMAN involved it may be someone poorly paid from an outsourcing country that has NO IDEA of what the two puzzle pieces should look like to match them. 4.) Candidates are more likely to never have encountered computer science, software, design, or tooling fundamentals. Non-exposure is different from belligerence. Job descriptions are often riddled with 50 to 100 keyword requirements - full-stack can always be trumped by entire global ecosystem requirements. So why is it surprising that candidates must list EVERYTHING they've encountered? Given that sweeping employer wishlist survey of technology, it is then cruel and unusual to expect candidates to be able to 'test' well against those oceans of domain knowledge. And let's be honest. Candidates are tested against a mountain of brain-teasing trivia and nuances gleaned from innumerable web resources dedicated to "weeding out" - cough - unqualified candidates. We need to get back to hiring based on mutual interest, mutual technology skillsets, and behavioral stability. If a candidate has everything then they won't grow in the job - bad fit. If they express interest in your direction - you have a candidate worth considering. Limit the total number of interviews to seven - no bullshit, pare down to three, pick your best. Give it six months. Rinse and repeat if necessary.
- non-entity 7y ago
  > Candidates are more likely to never have encountered computer science I remember reading a comment somewhere a while back that said something along the lines of "computer science has been mostly completed since the 80s". Now, I'm not sure how true that is, and I'm smart enough not to believe it literally, but I do understand the sentiment.

by croh 7y ago

krasicki 7y ago

1. is not always true nor is it germane to the question at hand. 2. is a highly unlikely scenario. Ecosystems are complex beasts at face value. Generally speaking the decision-makers stick close to the trajectory of their comfort zones. You've packed a lot of opinionated assumptions here that I'll pass on biting. 3. HR has dissolved in the past decade or so. You are lucky if there is a HUMAN aspect to HR (it can be, far too often, a keyword parsing exercise) AND when there is a HUMAN involved it may be someone poorly paid from an outsourcing country that has NO IDEA of what the two puzzle pieces should look like to match them. 4.) Candidates are more likely to never have encountered computer science, software, design, or tooling fundamentals. Non-exposure is different from belligerence. Job descriptions are often riddled with 50 to 100 keyword requirements - full-stack can always be trumped by entire global ecosystem requirements. So why is it surprising that candidates must list EVERYTHING they've encountered? Given that sweeping employer wishlist survey of technology, it is then cruel and unusual to expect candidates to be able to 'test' well against those oceans of domain knowledge. And let's be honest. Candidates are tested against a mountain of brain-teasing trivia and nuances gleaned from innumerable web resources dedicated to "weeding out" - cough - unqualified candidates. We need to get back to hiring based on mutual interest, mutual technology skillsets, and behavioral stability. If a candidate has everything then they won't grow in the job - bad fit. If they express interest in your direction - you have a candidate worth considering. Limit the total number of interviews to seven - no bullshit, pare down to three, pick your best. Give it six months. Rinse and repeat if necessary.

non-entity 7y ago
> Candidates are more likely to never have encountered computer science I remember reading a comment somewhere a while back that said something along the lines of "computer science has been mostly completed since the 80s". Now, I'm not sure how true that is, and I'm smart enough not to believe it literally, but I do understand the sentiment.