3 ms·

Can you share what those resume features tend to look like?

by cam0 6y ago

MauranKilom 6y ago
Disclaimer: This is for a quite particular set of positions, and it's not in the US (so I have no reference on US GPAs). The EU supply/demand situation is also different from the US, so your FAANG mileage may vary. Here are a few (at a level of detail that I'm comfortable sharing): - Outstanding (in either direction) performance in certain subjects in school is a very strong predictor. - Cover letters are mostly noise, but incoherent, overbearing or careless ones don't go very far. Lack of curiosity and interest is also a negative predictor (but these are of course easily feigned). - Relevant extracurricular engagement and/or industrial experience begets more well-rounded engineers. Let me be clear though that we consider applications on more than these factors. These are just predictors, and sometimes they are wrong. I have interviewed actuaries that couldn't calculate dice roll probabilities, C++ programmers that were confused by the class keyword and C# programmers that hadn't heard of virtual.
- watwut 6y ago
  Do you hire experienced people too? I someone has 35 years, does it makes sense to judge them on school results and extracurricular engagement? These are people who were in workforce 10+ years.
  - MauranKilom 6y ago
    You are correct to observe that what I listed is primarily relevant to people who have less experience. While prevalent, that's not exclusively the demographic of our applications, and of course the weight of these factors is reduced for someone who has been in the workforce for longer. But they remain good predictors nonetheless.
- vp8989 6y ago
  "C# programmers that hadn't heard of virtual" No offense, but that is a very silly thing to consider "foundational" in 2020. The heavy, all encompassing use of inheritance patterns these days is much less prevalent than 10 years ago, even in the C# community.
  - astura 6y ago
    Extremely silly, I got a C# job recently after I went about 7 years without touching C#. I forgot virtual existed until my first day when I had to look it up. I would have failed the "what's virtual?" question, yet I am very good at my job (just got a big raise).
- thu2111 6y ago
  I'll add a few more I've noticed over time. Certifications are a strong negative predictor. Someone who turns up with a lot of corporate certifications is unlikely to do well when asked difficult questions. People who have only ever worked in low grade or low tier banks tend to do poorly. There are a few exceptions. GS has good technologists. Most big investment banks have a few programmers (older ones usually) who have solid experience - but who are unlikely to put any creative effort in and may have a "here's why it can't be done" attitude. May not matter for some roles. People who list a very large number of short roles tend to do poorly. People who give a list of projects in their resume experience for which they only assert they were part of the group that delivered it, without concrete claims of tech leadership, often do poorly - generally it indicates a "hiding amongst the crowd" problem in which someone is a poor performer and attempts to hide lack of any actual achievement by reference to group projects. People who list obscure programming languages as a skill do relatively well, people who list obscure products as a skill do relatively poorly.

Can you share what those resume features tend to look like?

by cam0 6y ago

Can you share what those resume features tend to look like?

Disclaimer: This is for a quite particular set of positions, and it's not in the US (so I have no reference on US GPAs). The EU supply/demand situation is also different from the US, so your FAANG mileage may vary. Here are a few (at a level of detail that I'm comfortable sharing): - Outstanding (in either direction) performance in certain subjects in school is a very strong predictor. - Cover letters are mostly noise, but incoherent, overbearing or careless ones don't go very far. Lack of curiosity and interest is also a negative predictor (but these are of course easily feigned). - Relevant extracurricular engagement and/or industrial experience begets more well-rounded engineers. Let me be clear though that we consider applications on more than these factors. These are just predictors, and sometimes they are wrong. I have interviewed actuaries that couldn't calculate dice roll probabilities, C++ programmers that were confused by the class keyword and C# programmers that hadn't heard of virtual.

watwut 6y ago
Do you hire experienced people too? I someone has 35 years, does it makes sense to judge them on school results and extracurricular engagement? These are people who were in workforce 10+ years.
- MauranKilom 6y ago
  You are correct to observe that what I listed is primarily relevant to people who have less experience. While prevalent, that's not exclusively the demographic of our applications, and of course the weight of these factors is reduced for someone who has been in the workforce for longer. But they remain good predictors nonetheless.
vp8989 6y ago
"C# programmers that hadn't heard of virtual" No offense, but that is a very silly thing to consider "foundational" in 2020. The heavy, all encompassing use of inheritance patterns these days is much less prevalent than 10 years ago, even in the C# community.
- astura 6y ago
  Extremely silly, I got a C# job recently after I went about 7 years without touching C#. I forgot virtual existed until my first day when I had to look it up. I would have failed the "what's virtual?" question, yet I am very good at my job (just got a big raise).
thu2111 6y ago
I'll add a few more I've noticed over time. Certifications are a strong negative predictor. Someone who turns up with a lot of corporate certifications is unlikely to do well when asked difficult questions. People who have only ever worked in low grade or low tier banks tend to do poorly. There are a few exceptions. GS has good technologists. Most big investment banks have a few programmers (older ones usually) who have solid experience - but who are unlikely to put any creative effort in and may have a "here's why it can't be done" attitude. May not matter for some roles. People who list a very large number of short roles tend to do poorly. People who give a list of projects in their resume experience for which they only assert they were part of the group that delivered it, without concrete claims of tech leadership, often do poorly - generally it indicates a "hiding amongst the crowd" problem in which someone is a poor performer and attempts to hide lack of any actual achievement by reference to group projects. People who list obscure programming languages as a skill do relatively well, people who list obscure products as a skill do relatively poorly.