3 ms·

Hiring is not broken, there's simply wayyyyy too many candidates for any opened position, so companies get to be extremely picky and reject 100 people to fill o

Hiring is not broken, there's simply wayyyyy too many candidates for any opened position, so companies get to be extremely picky and reject 100 people to fill one position. And to be clear I'm not talking about having too many unqualified candidates who can't do a hello world (there's some but don't pass a screening test), I am talking about an oversupply of candidates of all levels who are able to pass the marathon of interview questions and exercises.

Tainnor 6y ago
That might be true in some areas but... in almost every company I've been, it's been ridiculously hard to find enough qualified applicants for a given role. There wouldn't even have been 100 people to reject. I think programming is still mostly an employee's market.
- user5994461 6y ago
  The 100 applicants are down to 10 people for an onsite, 2 or 3 get an offer, 1 is accepting it. Sometimes when I look back at the last few people I interviewed onsite, I'm pretty sure they could all have done the job just fine. It's crazy that they're all getting rejected, there is nothing wrong with them, the company is overly picky for no reason. Digging down there's probably 1 who got an offer and rejected it. Companies always forget to mention that half of their offers are rejected, hiring would be easier if they improved on that.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    > Companies always forget to mention that half of their offers are rejected, hiring would be easier if they improved on that. Easier for that company, but harder for the companies they beat out.
  - decafninja 6y ago
    Same. Pretty much every candidate we interview is more than capable of doing the job technically. Overwhelmingly, why my team picks one person for the job and reject the others is for non-technical/behavioral reasons. Then again my company is a boring investment bank, not a hot tech company. Top quality candidates are not in a rush to trample each other to join us. 90% of the candidates we get would not be able to brute force naively solve an leetcode medium or even a harder leetcode easy, let alone come up with an optimal solution. We would never be able to hire anyone if we rejected everyone that wasn't able to code an optimal solution in 40 minutes. Yet if hired, I have no doubt nearly all of them would be able to do the actual job more than well enough - and that has been the case with everyone that I've interviewed and gave the thumbs up to.
- diggernet 6y ago
  Define "qualified". It's also true that it can be ridiculously hard to get a company to respond to an application, and to get an interview. Assuming the job requirements aren't unnecessarily restrictive, there is something in the screening process that is actively harming both applicants and hiring managers.
  - Tainnor 6y ago
    I'm not saying that the process is perfect, and I do think that it can be difficult to get a particular job you want, but - at least where I live - it's ridiculously easy to get a job as a dev, even if it's one you're not excited about. This is a vast improvement over many other professions where people are stuck within their roles for a long time because they would struggle to find employment elsewhere.
renewiltord 6y ago
Well, in the sense that everyone rejected goes back in the pool and everyone accepted doesn't. So the pool is dominated by rejectees.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Tainnor 6y ago

That might be true in some areas but... in almost every company I've been, it's been ridiculously hard to find enough qualified applicants for a given role. There wouldn't even have been 100 people to reject. I think programming is still mostly an employee's market.

user5994461 6y ago
The 100 applicants are down to 10 people for an onsite, 2 or 3 get an offer, 1 is accepting it. Sometimes when I look back at the last few people I interviewed onsite, I'm pretty sure they could all have done the job just fine. It's crazy that they're all getting rejected, there is nothing wrong with them, the company is overly picky for no reason. Digging down there's probably 1 who got an offer and rejected it. Companies always forget to mention that half of their offers are rejected, hiring would be easier if they improved on that.
- triceratops 6y ago
  > Companies always forget to mention that half of their offers are rejected, hiring would be easier if they improved on that. Easier for that company, but harder for the companies they beat out.
- decafninja 6y ago
  Same. Pretty much every candidate we interview is more than capable of doing the job technically. Overwhelmingly, why my team picks one person for the job and reject the others is for non-technical/behavioral reasons. Then again my company is a boring investment bank, not a hot tech company. Top quality candidates are not in a rush to trample each other to join us. 90% of the candidates we get would not be able to brute force naively solve an leetcode medium or even a harder leetcode easy, let alone come up with an optimal solution. We would never be able to hire anyone if we rejected everyone that wasn't able to code an optimal solution in 40 minutes. Yet if hired, I have no doubt nearly all of them would be able to do the actual job more than well enough - and that has been the case with everyone that I've interviewed and gave the thumbs up to.
diggernet 6y ago
Define "qualified". It's also true that it can be ridiculously hard to get a company to respond to an application, and to get an interview. Assuming the job requirements aren't unnecessarily restrictive, there is something in the screening process that is actively harming both applicants and hiring managers.
- Tainnor 6y ago
  I'm not saying that the process is perfect, and I do think that it can be difficult to get a particular job you want, but - at least where I live - it's ridiculously easy to get a job as a dev, even if it's one you're not excited about. This is a vast improvement over many other professions where people are stuck within their roles for a long time because they would struggle to find employment elsewhere.

renewiltord 6y ago

Well, in the sense that everyone rejected goes back in the pool and everyone accepted doesn't. So the pool is dominated by rejectees.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]