5 ms·

> a rapidly growing population of devs who feel like they're locked out due to the technical interview process. I’m not convinced all these articles about “hir

by dahart 6y ago

> a rapidly growing population of devs who feel like they're locked out due to the technical interview process. I’m not convinced all these articles about “hiring is broken” and “interviews are broken” actually help with this problem. They are pining for something that may not exist (and may not be possible), and failing to help candidates understand and excel within the current system’s imperfections. I get the impression that many young devs have skewed expectations and aren’t practicing job interviews before attempting them, and believe that their coding skills are the only things that should matter. The article here reinforces those expectations by repeatedly talking about evaluating competency without acknowledging that competency in soft skills like writing and communication and attitude are often at least as important as competency in software engineering, for example. That said, I would very much agree with your approach and that a technical apprentice is a nice way for both the candidate and the company to learn about each other. Internships naturally do this without necessarily having the expectation of hiring the intern - though I’ve seen a lot of interns hired because they prove themselves competent. One problem with a technical apprentice role as an alternative to longer interviews is that you have to expect to not hire a large percentage of the apprentices (otherwise there’s no point). In that sense, the apprenticeship becomes a much more demanding interview, and the commitment and risks are much higher for both the candidate and the company. As someone who does a lot of interviewing and resume reading and hiring, I’m not sure I would change my interview process if I hired more apprentices (but I already spend a lot of time looking for potential over experience.)

stove 6y ago
I would argue that _none_ of the articles about “hiring is broken” and “interviews are broken” actually help with this problem. There is near-universal consensus that technical hiring is atrocious and yet very few people putting forth possible solutions and/or companies willing to experiment with the status quo. My ideas are: * Real-world interview questions * Standardized testing for "soft" skills. It can be done. * Dedicated onboarding resources * Apprenticeships for entry-level engineers with dedicated training programs * Remove all names from all inbound job applications * Offer _more_ money for internal referrals. Make them on par with what you'd pay a recruiter.
- dahart 6y ago
  > There is near-universal consensus that technical hiring is atrocious I hear this a lot on Hacker News, but not inside any companies. And when asked why people think it's atrocious, I rarely get a set of answers that agree on the specifics. I'd love to hear more about what metrics show evidence that hiring is atrocious, as well as what is making it atrocious for you. What does that mean in the pre-coronavirus context? Are companies not finding people, and are people not getting jobs? I'm asking honestly and seriously, so I can improve my own hiring practices. I don't doubt there's a problem, I just don't have a handle on exactly what it is, and the reports here on HN aren't matching my own experience. I admit I don't match the profile of the average web developer, so I may be ignorant of what's happening in the broader tech world today, especially regarding recent hires from school. In my own experience interviewing at and hiring for multiple companies over the last 20 years, what I've seen and done matches some of your ideas. We are getting and giving real world interview questions. The interviews are at least somewhat standardized. There are dedicated onboarding resources. I haven't seen names redacted anywhere, and that's a good idea to normalize cultural or gender biases, but problematic if you want people to review your online portfolio, or if you know someone in the company who can vouch for you, both of which many candidates do want. It is my experience that internal referrals have significantly higher chance of success, pay for the candidate is likely to be higher than for external candidates, and referrers are typically rewarded financially for the referral. Many people complain that the referral system is part of the problem under the logic that it can encourage nepotism and echo chamber behavior. I don't fully agree, but I don't think this is as obvious of a win as you suggest either, or that the majority of people would agree with it.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    Where I work hr won't let us ask any question that isn't scientificly proven to make a difference. It makes it hard to ask technical questions.
    - dahart 6y ago
      Oh that's fascinating! Can you talk about what questions are scientifically proven to make a difference, and/or the methodology of proving it? I've read bits and pieces here and there, but not seriously followed such research. I imagine that style, specific words, amount of follow-up, and even mood in the room can play important factors here in the "success rates" of certain interview questions...?

by dahart 6y ago

stove 6y ago

I would argue that _none_ of the articles about “hiring is broken” and “interviews are broken” actually help with this problem. There is near-universal consensus that technical hiring is atrocious and yet very few people putting forth possible solutions and/or companies willing to experiment with the status quo. My ideas are: * Real-world interview questions * Standardized testing for "soft" skills. It can be done. * Dedicated onboarding resources * Apprenticeships for entry-level engineers with dedicated training programs * Remove all names from all inbound job applications * Offer _more_ money for internal referrals. Make them on par with what you'd pay a recruiter.

dahart 6y ago
> There is near-universal consensus that technical hiring is atrocious I hear this a lot on Hacker News, but not inside any companies. And when asked why people think it's atrocious, I rarely get a set of answers that agree on the specifics. I'd love to hear more about what metrics show evidence that hiring is atrocious, as well as what is making it atrocious for you. What does that mean in the pre-coronavirus context? Are companies not finding people, and are people not getting jobs? I'm asking honestly and seriously, so I can improve my own hiring practices. I don't doubt there's a problem, I just don't have a handle on exactly what it is, and the reports here on HN aren't matching my own experience. I admit I don't match the profile of the average web developer, so I may be ignorant of what's happening in the broader tech world today, especially regarding recent hires from school. In my own experience interviewing at and hiring for multiple companies over the last 20 years, what I've seen and done matches some of your ideas. We are getting and giving real world interview questions. The interviews are at least somewhat standardized. There are dedicated onboarding resources. I haven't seen names redacted anywhere, and that's a good idea to normalize cultural or gender biases, but problematic if you want people to review your online portfolio, or if you know someone in the company who can vouch for you, both of which many candidates do want. It is my experience that internal referrals have significantly higher chance of success, pay for the candidate is likely to be higher than for external candidates, and referrers are typically rewarded financially for the referral. Many people complain that the referral system is part of the problem under the logic that it can encourage nepotism and echo chamber behavior. I don't fully agree, but I don't think this is as obvious of a win as you suggest either, or that the majority of people would agree with it.
- bluGill 6y ago
  Where I work hr won't let us ask any question that isn't scientificly proven to make a difference. It makes it hard to ask technical questions.
  - dahart 6y ago
    Oh that's fascinating! Can you talk about what questions are scientifically proven to make a difference, and/or the methodology of proving it? I've read bits and pieces here and there, but not seriously followed such research. I imagine that style, specific words, amount of follow-up, and even mood in the room can play important factors here in the "success rates" of certain interview questions...?