8 ms·

I feel your tone is slightly too condescending, but I have to agree with the general statement. I'm responsible for hiring in my small department, and the OPs

by linza 7y ago

I feel your tone is slightly too condescending, but I have to agree with the general statement. I'm responsible for hiring in my small department, and the OPs blog post would be a red flag. We appreciate if candidates show they can learn quickly, but it's not useful to us in isolation. You already need to have a good base set of skills (CS, physics) but more importantly the humility to accept that with 5 years of experience you probably don't really know the thing you claim to know. Some bay area tech companies like to hire more riskily, so it might be a good strategy after all though.

chaboud 7y ago
Ha! I wouldn’t be surprised if you found it altogether too condescending... I generally find myself being a little more brutal with people who sound/read like me 18-20 years ago, partly because I think that being hit over the head can actually do some good. It certainly helped me, and I’d have done better to listen more quickly rather than having the echoes of those much wiser than me take decades to sink in. I strongly favor raw learning ability over knowledge when hiring for most positions. It’s incredibly valuable to be able to transition from one space to another over the span of 3-12 months (depending on the domain). Some badges are harder to earn (e.g. mathematics, physics, hardware, distributed design), but I generally feel okay taking someone who is an expert in one space and pointing them at another space that relies on the same fundamentals if they seem like they can learn. I do, however, prioritize two things above learning proficiency when hiring: 1. Accurate self-assessment. If you can’t understand where you are, you’re going to be a constant headache. 2. Not an asshole. An asshole can destroy a team, even if they’re brilliant. I want someone to be able to learn deeply quickly, though. Generally, if they have that ability, they’ll have real depth in areas of prior learning. For candidates at the Senior Engineer levels and above, I’ll spend at least an hour or two before the interview reading their publications or digging in on their areas of stated expertise so I can ask questions probing to their edge (or mine). Sadly, I hit the candidate edge first for roughly 80% of candidates, and it strongly correlates to no-hires.

by linza 7y ago

chaboud 7y ago

Ha! I wouldn’t be surprised if you found it altogether too condescending... I generally find myself being a little more brutal with people who sound/read like me 18-20 years ago, partly because I think that being hit over the head can actually do some good. It certainly helped me, and I’d have done better to listen more quickly rather than having the echoes of those much wiser than me take decades to sink in. I strongly favor raw learning ability over knowledge when hiring for most positions. It’s incredibly valuable to be able to transition from one space to another over the span of 3-12 months (depending on the domain). Some badges are harder to earn (e.g. mathematics, physics, hardware, distributed design), but I generally feel okay taking someone who is an expert in one space and pointing them at another space that relies on the same fundamentals if they seem like they can learn. I do, however, prioritize two things above learning proficiency when hiring: 1. Accurate self-assessment. If you can’t understand where you are, you’re going to be a constant headache. 2. Not an asshole. An asshole can destroy a team, even if they’re brilliant. I want someone to be able to learn deeply quickly, though. Generally, if they have that ability, they’ll have real depth in areas of prior learning. For candidates at the Senior Engineer levels and above, I’ll spend at least an hour or two before the interview reading their publications or digging in on their areas of stated expertise so I can ask questions probing to their edge (or mine). Sadly, I hit the candidate edge first for roughly 80% of candidates, and it strongly correlates to no-hires.