36 ms·

I would say the issues with interviews are * they're not cheap (although not that expensive all things considered), assuming you spend say 10 person hours on t

by kag0 7y ago

I would say the issues with interviews are * they're not cheap (although not that expensive all things considered), assuming you spend say 10 person hours on two calls and an on site. * they produce false negatives. on the spot exam style algorithms interviews don't reflect day-to-day work, and they filter out people who might be great at the job, but aren't used to the specific type of stress that interview creates. * they can produce false positives. failure to check for interpersonal skills in leet koders can leave you wishing you had never hired them. * they're painful for the candidate. ideally your role is the best fit for a candidate. people only have so much emotional and logistical bandwidth. they may take an offer after interviewing with a handful of companies before they ever find you. now, I don't have numbers for those last three points. I don't know if anyone does. but we can look at most hiring processes and see that they are a problem, we just can't tell if it's a big enough problem to consider the process "broken".

dahart 7y ago
> we can look at most hiring processes and see that they are a problem I’m not seeing a compelling problem with the outcome. The question is: are companies not able to hire good people? And: are good people not able to find jobs? Interviews are also expensive for a company. And I don’t really see a clear or compelling argument that interviews somehow cost the candidate money. How much money? If the candidate doesn’t have a job, then what exactly is money or time cost to the candidate? Doesn’t the eventual job with income outweigh all interviewing costs? Isn’t the cost somewhat irrelevant if it’s not egregious, and there’s really no choice if you want a job? Isn’t the alternative, choosing not to interview, potentially way more expensive? If you’re going to frame it as expensive, I think it’s more than fair to counter with you need to average the cost of the interview over the time period that you’re employed. If you interview for 10 hours, and you work there for 5 years, the cost of the interview is 20 seconds per day. > they’re painful for the candidate I agree that interviews have a time cost and that candidates have a finite budget. That means someone looking for a job should invest wisely, figure out how & when to decline an interview, study the companies before interviewing. This is subjective, and it’s not a solvable “hiring problem”. This is something the candidate has to fix for themselves. Nobody is going to give you a six figure salary and ask you to work with them for many years without vetting you. It will always take time, and it will always be somewhat uncomfortable and emotionally draining. Some people prepare for interviews, and some people like to interview. If you view it as a skill, one that you can learn and improve at, maybe it will become less painful for you. But don’t expect that companies are ever going to do that for you.

by kag0 7y ago

dahart 7y ago

> we can look at most hiring processes and see that they are a problem I’m not seeing a compelling problem with the outcome. The question is: are companies not able to hire good people? And: are good people not able to find jobs? Interviews are also expensive for a company. And I don’t really see a clear or compelling argument that interviews somehow cost the candidate money. How much money? If the candidate doesn’t have a job, then what exactly is money or time cost to the candidate? Doesn’t the eventual job with income outweigh all interviewing costs? Isn’t the cost somewhat irrelevant if it’s not egregious, and there’s really no choice if you want a job? Isn’t the alternative, choosing not to interview, potentially way more expensive? If you’re going to frame it as expensive, I think it’s more than fair to counter with you need to average the cost of the interview over the time period that you’re employed. If you interview for 10 hours, and you work there for 5 years, the cost of the interview is 20 seconds per day. > they’re painful for the candidate I agree that interviews have a time cost and that candidates have a finite budget. That means someone looking for a job should invest wisely, figure out how & when to decline an interview, study the companies before interviewing. This is subjective, and it’s not a solvable “hiring problem”. This is something the candidate has to fix for themselves. Nobody is going to give you a six figure salary and ask you to work with them for many years without vetting you. It will always take time, and it will always be somewhat uncomfortable and emotionally draining. Some people prepare for interviews, and some people like to interview. If you view it as a skill, one that you can learn and improve at, maybe it will become less painful for you. But don’t expect that companies are ever going to do that for you.