26 ms·

It was made the clearest to me when I interviewed a colleague who had left to another company and two years later was interviewing to return. I knew he knew eve

• whatever1 6y ago
  Having multiple respectable people that can vouch for you is a much better performance predictor than a 1-day interview. Same reason that recommendation letters are more important than GRE tests for the ones seeking PhD studies.
  • erentz 6y ago
    It does suck that it’s like this in an industry where you have a lot of non-neurotypical people though. People who are very good and capable but on the spectrum, or shy and reclusive, who really can’t do the networking and conference scene thing, etc. Wish there was a better answer than to tell them they just have to be wired differently.
    • eropple 6y ago
      There are other avenues. I've been excited to hire somebody in the past pretty much on the strength of their detailed technical blogging. Kind of a mess in the interview, but I knew they could do the job coming in. (They were great.)
    • Frost1x 6y ago
      Let's not forget that the type of work in this industry and hours needed in the name of cost savings hinders many peoples' desire for professional development work outside of work. I don't know about most people but lately, at the end of the day when I make enough progress to meet expectations, the last thing I want to do is anything related to work anymore, even if it's an investment in myself. At some point my life takes precedent over my career. If delivery expectations are reasonable (i.e. time requirements), I don't mind networking outside of work. I've worked in environments with reasonable expectations and environments with unreasonable expectations. My observation has been that environments with reasonable expectations are in decline in the name of competitiveness and cost cutting measures, passing costs to employees. This industry is becoming significantly less enjoyable to work in and growing to a toxic point of hypercompetiveness at every layer. It's not healthy for those working in the industry.
    • renewiltord 6y ago
      That’s really not a problem. If you think about it, everyone wants to help their network by default. And in startups, you care about outcomes. It doesn’t really matter if you’re shy or gregarious if you can make the crucial thing. It’s a big company problem, not a startup problem.
      • TheTruestKyle 6y ago
        Do have data on this? My experience is that everyone is selfish.
    • theflyinghorse 6y ago
      > conference scene thing Who can? Conferences are so expansive!
  • Aunche 6y ago
    Hiring primarily based on references almost guarantees bias. White engineers will tend to know more white engineers. Asian engineers will tend to know more Asian engineers.
    • rainyMammoth 6y ago
      that is not bias, but rather a lack of diversity
      • m4x 6y ago
        It's still a bias - one that's exacerbated by a lack of diversity
    • BurningFrog 6y ago
      This assumes white engineers only knows other white engineers etc. This is very much not how the Silicon Valley I've been in for decades works!
      • Aunche 6y ago
        Of course, you could have diverse acquaintances and friends, but most people are more inclined to be friends with people who share the same race and gender because they often share the same experiences. This puts a black female at a great disadvantage if her friends are mostly other black females because so few of them work in tech.
        • BurningFrog 6y ago
          I would only refer people I've worked with. And they are as diverse as the industry. This approach does discriminate against people who are looking for their first job. I think that's both unavoidable and fine.
          • whatever1 6y ago
            This gap is covered mostly by internships.
• AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  Good networking has always been the best way to find work. Or, come to think of it, opportunity of any kind.
• decafninja 6y ago
  I feel in the tech industry, networking and knowing people only gets you so far - typically just to the whiteboard interview. Then you have to solve the leetcode problems just like everyone else. Especially so in larger companies. FWIW, all of my friends who somehow managed to get into FAANG or other top tech companies swear that were they to go through the interview again, odds are they would fail. This despite all of them being great engineers.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • haecceity 6y ago
    On the other hand you can get pretty far even if you don't any social network but you can solve textbook problems.
    • Gibbon1 6y ago
      Tip for CS students: Get to know your fellow students and really get to know your professors. Try and leave a good impression.
  • goostavos 6y ago
    I'm actually a little scared to leave my current FAANG gig for that exact reason tbh. I'm fairly certain I wouldn't make it back in the door without more leetcode grinding + repeated loops than I'm willing to do at this point in my career. Plus, stack on top of that, I've seen how the sausage is made. I've done 90+ interviews on the other side. At the end of the day, it comes down to how lucky you got in the loop. I've seen some people written off for some bullshit reasons. Similarly, I'VE declined on people who're likely far, far, far more skilled than I am because of the lowers/raises approach and the narrow slice you're tasked with reviewing in the 50min you're given.
    • alkibiades 6y ago
      idk if it’s just luck. i’ve had loops in college where i failed them. but then later in my career i had times where i got every company i interviewed at. Excessive preparation was the key difference. I do think luck plays a big part but i don’t think it’s the only factor, or even the biggest. (maybe 2nd biggest)
• episteme 6y ago
  Your advice goes directly against your example and I would say that most companies interview like that. Surely the advice should be to spend time on interview prep regardless of how good you are at the job.
• javert 6y ago
  > If you want a job and good career progression the best advice has to be prioritize making friends with lots of people Getting good at interviewing should also be a priority, and is doable. Getting good at interviewing is largely about developing (a) genuine programming skill; and b) at least some people/communication skill. When you have those skills, you have less anxiety about the interview, and can perform well.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • jjav 6y ago
    Genuine programming skill has no correlation to the skill of regurgitating algorithms in a reality-show type setting. Actual development, of real products, isn't done like that. This is the reason why it's so perpetually controversial to put developers through this type of interviews which measure nothing relevant to the job.
    • javert 6y ago
      > regurgitating algorithms in a reality-show type setting You're not wrong, but this falls under the genus of "companies that suck at interviewing," and thereby hurt themselves (i.e. the company). In other words, it's not an inherent fault of the programming interview. But there is more to it than meets the eye. Some companies actually just are that incompetent. But, to take a particularly successful and egregious offender: is Google actually just that incompetent? So that they systematically do hiring in a poor way? No, of course not. They actually don't want the best people. They want the mediocre people who are also obedient. The kind of people who can be told to study an algorithms book, and will do it, and will regurgitate it, as a show of obedience, mostly, but also mediocre (but not great) intelligence---not great, because if they had great intelligence, they wouldn't waste their time on that kind of activity. Such people can be treated as interchangeable cogs, which is why BigCo wants to filter for them.
      • jjav 6y ago
        > They want the mediocre people who are also obedient. The kind of people who can be > told to study an algorithms book, and will do it, and will regurgitate it, as a > show of obedience, mostly, but also mediocre (but not great) intelligence--- > not great, because if they had great intelligence, they wouldn't waste their > time on that kind of activity. Perhaps a bit cynical but there is truth to that. A huge company just needs cogs that can do the job and don't think outside the box much.
• RandallBrown 6y ago
  I interviewed someone that several of my coworkers had worked with before, and spoke very highly of. He even was my current manager's manager at their last job together. He kinda blew the interview. He did okay, but not even close to the level of experience he had. It was very obvious he was nervous, so we hired him anyway. No regrets.
• Osiris 6y ago
  At my company we interviewed two people. Both did fairly poorly in different ways. One we hired because he was a referral and came highly recommended despite a not great interview. He's been great. The second guy was rejected but later hired as a contractor and he's worked out well as well and now we're looking at offering him a full-time position. My conclusion is that our interview process isn't good at determining if a candidate would be a good employee. My preference would be to hire someone as a contractor and give them a project then use that to determine their quality and fit. Unfortunately, HR tells me that's not feasible for reasons I don't understand.
  • redisman 6y ago
    > HR tells me that's not feasible for reasons I don't understand You are asking them to do some work.
  • tonyedgecombe 6y ago
    My preference would be to hire someone as a contractor When I was contracting it was common to be offered a job at the end of the contract. I always turned it down because I liked being a contractor. From talking to my peers at the time this was common. If someone didn't want to be a contractor then they wouldn't accept your offer in the first place.