3 ms·
You see, I've had the opposite experience whenever I've been looking for my next challenge. I've had recruiters talk to me at length about each of the people I
by philjohn 7y ago
You see, I've had the opposite experience whenever I've been looking for my next challenge.
I've had recruiters talk to me at length about each of the people I'd be meeting in the on-site, their backgrounds, what they'd be covering. I've had ones give me broad strokes about why previous candidates were passed on. At the end of the day, it's not in their interest to bring too many people to an on-site who will fail spectacularly, because that means they're not doing their job properly.
I may just be lucky.
- cushychicken 7y agoI'm reading a little between the lines of your comment, but two possible interpretations of your post are: 1) You've had the good fortune to work with good recruiters/HR reps, and 2) You're a qualified candidate for the role they're bringing you in for. I say that because of an HN comment I saw from a recruiter (maybe Aline Lerner? Don't remember) that they typically send in one unqualified candidate to interview for a role first, no matter what. That's because the hiring committee always - always - has an itchy trigger finger to reject the first candidate. I'd have to imagine that a recruiter worth their salt would learn this lesson as well; you don't get good at something like recruiting without learning similar hard lessons as the other good people in the field. Point being: the recruiter was trying to give you an idea of what to expect in your on-site, because they thought you were good, and they thought you'd be introduced at a point in the process where you could actually succeed. (The hiring committee having already gotten their itch to reject a candidate out of their collective system.)
- philjohn 7y agoGood point - perhaps it's a little of column A, a little of column B.