7 ms·

>109+ applications later, I landed myself more than 60 interviews. These comprised more than 60 introductory phone interviews, 50+ technical phone screen interv

>109+ applications later, I landed myself more than 60 interviews. These comprised more than 60 introductory phone interviews, 50+ technical phone screen interviews, 18 take-home coding projects, 11 coding challenges and 8 on-site interviews including 3 virtual ones. Rearranging slightly, into filter pass rates: application: 55% recruiter screens: 85% technical phone screens: 72% second tech screen: 21% onsites: ?% Obviously not every company follows the same process, but it seems like the author found it hard to make it through tech screens into onsites. So I'm not sure how much I'd weigh on their advice in that stage of the hiring process. But maybe someone with better access to the data can do a more nuanced analysis, like how often completing a code challenge led to advancing in the hiring process; I found those to be quite easy on average, but surprised to see how hard they were for the roles I was applying to -- it's not often an SRE would be assigned a programming task involving clique analysis.

onion2k 6y ago
Those are those sort of numbers I'd expect for every candidate. The point of a technical screen is to filter people out. They're not an objective check to see if a candidate is capable; they're a relative test to narrow the number of people you invite to the next stage to the best 5 or 6 candidates. If you're rejected at that stage it doesn't mean you're not capable. It just means the screener saw half a dozen people who answered to questions a little better.
- djcapelis 6y ago
  > Those are those sort of numbers I'd expect for every candidate. > The point of a technical screen is to filter people out. I mean sure. But I’ve never once been rejected on a tech screen. Most people I’d want to take advice from don’t get screened out often either. So much interview advice is just awful and these “grind away mindlessly” narratives are actively nonsense that does not correlate to getting a well matched and awesome position.
  - onion2k 6y ago
    I mean sure. But I’ve never once been rejected on a tech screen. All the best people fail because they're doing stuff that's at the edge of their capability. They're pushing their limit, and sometimes they push too hard. If you've never failed it's much more likely to be because you've never strayed out of your comfort zone than because you're amazing and there's no challenge you can't meet. That's not necessarily a bad thing; we do some of our best work when we're not under pressure, but you shouldn't really criticise people who do fail at things. It might not be because they're 'worse'; it might be because they're trying to do harder things. Personally I have a lot more respect for people who try and fail, especially if they get back up and try again, than for people who coast along never failing. Only failing and trying again shows you have character and grit.
    - djcapelis 6y ago
      Routinely failing a simple tech screen is not a symptom of stretching. It’s a symptom of probably not being in a place to be blogging interview lessons for others. Totally credit to this dude for putting himself out there, but I think he’s radically miscalibrated to be doing so in a way where he’s had this experience and is off handing out advice. To extend a more accessible analogy, in universities, the people who pass the course the first time are picked as tutors. Not the people who re-took it seven times because it was a stretch for them. > it might be because they're trying to do harder things I literally work on one of the, if not the, top team for what I do in the entire industry. I’ve failed plenty of times. I’ve never failed a basic tech screen though... They’re not supposed to be hard!
      - dominotw 6y ago
        > They’re not supposed to be hard! how are you defining hard? do you have an example? i got this in my tech screen from a mid tier company in bay area https://leetcode.com/problems/k-similar-strings/ https://leetcode.com/problems/k-similar-strings/ they were expecting a perfect solution because successful candidates in the past gave them a perfect solution. do you consider that 'hard' in 45 min phone screen?
grumple 6y ago
Well, your analysis is a miss here: many of those technical phone screens led to take-homes, not on-sites. I’ve rarely heard of a company doing both a take home project and technical on-site (I did this once; it sucked).
- bradlys 6y ago
  Take home projects seem to only replace a phone screen as far as I can tell. I’ve never seen a company in the Bay Area completely replace an on-site interview with a take home.
- jldugger 6y ago
  Yea, I've only had two takehome projects that I can recall, and neither led to an offer, so it's not clear to me where they fit in a one-site-fits-all hiring funnel.
rm445 6y ago
Those numbers are great though! My take-away from those numbers is that this candidate is superb at applications, and merely way-above-average at phone screens.
bananaface 6y ago
I don't know why everyone in these threads is always obsessed with hit rate. It's totally irrelevant. It doesn't tell you anything. If your success rate is 90%, you're probably applying for positions that pay less than you're worth. If you stretch your salary target, your hit rate will go down. 2% hit rate on $200k jobs is better than 90% hit rate on $40k jobs, end of discussion. Final salary relative to actual value is all that matters, and that's very hard to evaluate.
- scarface74 6y ago
  I’m living in a major metropolitan area on the east coast. The salary range locally for any level is at most $35K -$40K. That’s real money, but the interview process is not much different for the high end and the low end. It’s mostly based on skills and experience.
- jldugger 6y ago
  Unless you believe this is somehow affecting specific stages in the pipeline, I think it's a non-issue.
  - bananaface 6y ago
    Of course it will affect specific stages more than others, but with these sample sizes variance within stages is already going to be large.
    - jldugger 6y ago
      > Of course it will affect specific stages more than others I don't think thats particularly obvious; if a weak candidate is applying above their weight, I would think a resume/recruiter screen is just as likely to screen them out as a tech screen.
      - bananaface 6y ago
        I think that's naive, but it doesn't matter either way if there's a large variance.

onion2k 6y ago

Those are those sort of numbers I'd expect for every candidate. The point of a technical screen is to filter people out. They're not an objective check to see if a candidate is capable; they're a relative test to narrow the number of people you invite to the next stage to the best 5 or 6 candidates. If you're rejected at that stage it doesn't mean you're not capable. It just means the screener saw half a dozen people who answered to questions a little better.

djcapelis 6y ago
> Those are those sort of numbers I'd expect for every candidate. > The point of a technical screen is to filter people out. I mean sure. But I’ve never once been rejected on a tech screen. Most people I’d want to take advice from don’t get screened out often either. So much interview advice is just awful and these “grind away mindlessly” narratives are actively nonsense that does not correlate to getting a well matched and awesome position.
- onion2k 6y ago
  I mean sure. But I’ve never once been rejected on a tech screen. All the best people fail because they're doing stuff that's at the edge of their capability. They're pushing their limit, and sometimes they push too hard. If you've never failed it's much more likely to be because you've never strayed out of your comfort zone than because you're amazing and there's no challenge you can't meet. That's not necessarily a bad thing; we do some of our best work when we're not under pressure, but you shouldn't really criticise people who do fail at things. It might not be because they're 'worse'; it might be because they're trying to do harder things. Personally I have a lot more respect for people who try and fail, especially if they get back up and try again, than for people who coast along never failing. Only failing and trying again shows you have character and grit.
  - djcapelis 6y ago
    Routinely failing a simple tech screen is not a symptom of stretching. It’s a symptom of probably not being in a place to be blogging interview lessons for others. Totally credit to this dude for putting himself out there, but I think he’s radically miscalibrated to be doing so in a way where he’s had this experience and is off handing out advice. To extend a more accessible analogy, in universities, the people who pass the course the first time are picked as tutors. Not the people who re-took it seven times because it was a stretch for them. > it might be because they're trying to do harder things I literally work on one of the, if not the, top team for what I do in the entire industry. I’ve failed plenty of times. I’ve never failed a basic tech screen though... They’re not supposed to be hard!
    - dominotw 6y ago
      > They’re not supposed to be hard! how are you defining hard? do you have an example? i got this in my tech screen from a mid tier company in bay area https://leetcode.com/problems/k-similar-strings/ https://leetcode.com/problems/k-similar-strings/ they were expecting a perfect solution because successful candidates in the past gave them a perfect solution. do you consider that 'hard' in 45 min phone screen?

grumple 6y ago

Well, your analysis is a miss here: many of those technical phone screens led to take-homes, not on-sites. I’ve rarely heard of a company doing both a take home project and technical on-site (I did this once; it sucked).

bradlys 6y ago
Take home projects seem to only replace a phone screen as far as I can tell. I’ve never seen a company in the Bay Area completely replace an on-site interview with a take home.
jldugger 6y ago
Yea, I've only had two takehome projects that I can recall, and neither led to an offer, so it's not clear to me where they fit in a one-site-fits-all hiring funnel.

rm445 6y ago

Those numbers are great though! My take-away from those numbers is that this candidate is superb at applications, and merely way-above-average at phone screens.

bananaface 6y ago

I don't know why everyone in these threads is always obsessed with hit rate. It's totally irrelevant. It doesn't tell you anything. If your success rate is 90%, you're probably applying for positions that pay less than you're worth. If you stretch your salary target, your hit rate will go down. 2% hit rate on $200k jobs is better than 90% hit rate on $40k jobs, end of discussion. Final salary relative to actual value is all that matters, and that's very hard to evaluate.

scarface74 6y ago
I’m living in a major metropolitan area on the east coast. The salary range locally for any level is at most $35K -$40K. That’s real money, but the interview process is not much different for the high end and the low end. It’s mostly based on skills and experience.
jldugger 6y ago
Unless you believe this is somehow affecting specific stages in the pipeline, I think it's a non-issue.
- bananaface 6y ago
  Of course it will affect specific stages more than others, but with these sample sizes variance within stages is already going to be large.
  - jldugger 6y ago
    > Of course it will affect specific stages more than others I don't think thats particularly obvious; if a weak candidate is applying above their weight, I would think a resume/recruiter screen is just as likely to screen them out as a tech screen.
    - bananaface 6y ago
      I think that's naive, but it doesn't matter either way if there's a large variance.