4 ms·

I have dealt with around 100 technically-oriented recruiters in the last 30 years. That's not a huge number, but it is plausibly a statistically reasonable samp

by dsr_ 6y ago

I have dealt with around 100 technically-oriented recruiters in the last 30 years. That's not a huge number, but it is plausibly a statistically reasonable sample size. I have been on both the wanting-to-hire and wanting-to-be-hired sides. I can name precisely one recruiter who was both honest and knowledgeable. As a rule of thumb, recruiters don't know what the buzzwords mean and can't judge quality. They are salespeople without product knowledge.

hawk_ 6y ago
they may not understand the buzzwords but do they generate matches that wouldn't have happened otherwise? i don't have an opinion either way but understanding the meaning of the terms seems to be irrelevant to what they do.
- dsr_ 6y ago
  A random number generator also generates matches that would not have happened otherwise. I think it is odd, in Hacker News, to see the opinion that semantics don't really matter. Java vs JavaScript. Linux vs Linux Kernel. FPGA vs LPGA vs RPG vs RPG vs RPG-III. Those are all basically the same, right? (Field programmable, ladies' professional rocket-propelled golf role-playing report generation language: there's probably three jobs at game studios that could use all that, actually.)
  - hawk_ 6y ago
    perhaps I didn't fully explain that. my point was that the most direct criteria for a recruiter's performance would be how many matches they made compared to a primitive automaton. whether that requires understanding buzzwords may be true but isn't self evident. it's a bit like SV's obsession with whiteboarding. too many people in SV conflate good performance at whiteboarding with good performance at work. the true measure still is good performance at work though.
- ugh123 6y ago
  If they don't understand the meaning of terms in a resume and how that may or may not align with the requirements of the job, then what value do recruiters bring? If they're merely there to "match" on buzzwords and technical jargon- then that could easily be done by software. What else do tech recruiters bring to the table?
  - imnotlost 6y ago
    Kind of like when two realtors pretend they're adding $100K of value to a transaction...
    - Judgmentality 6y ago
      The difference is the realtors want you to pay them money for their services. The recruiters want to pay you money for your services.
      - svachalek 6y ago
        Sort of. They sell your services to a company and make money on the sale. Even recruiters that technically work in-house for a company are usually on contract and won't be there long, I really doubt they are thinking about their job as paying you for something they want.
        Judgmentality 6y ago
        I meant from the perspective of the user/consumer/customer. One says "I am very useful, please pay me $100k!" The other says "I think you are very useful, please consider this $100k signing bonus!" Yes, they're both trying to sell you something. But it's very different when someone is trying to take your money and someone is trying to offer you money.
        ak217 6y ago
        But it's not their bonus to give. The recruiters' incentives are structured the same way as the realtors: they're facilitating a transaction while taking a commission. Sell-side realtor:employer-side recruiter::buy-side realtor:employee-side recruiter. The main difference is that you're not legally obligated to go through a recruiter to get a job, so recruiters have to work a bit harder to justify their value.
- matsemann 6y ago
  I recently had two weird experiences: One asking about my Elm experience, but what he said made no sense. Realized after a while he thought it was the same as HELM. Second one: Asked me to tell about what I do in frontend. I explained about how I've used Elm and React professionally for years. I later had to explain that entailed being proficient in JS, as I apparently hadn't ticked all the boxes they were after..
- schnevets 6y ago
  Normally I would agree - a good salesperson may not need to know the application they are pitching - but the recruiting industry's unapologetic ignorance definitely causes damage to potential employees (especially more vulnerable candidates) and hurts the industry as a whole. It is an (unfortunately) essential part of the tech industry that amplifies common misconceptions like Java == Javascript and exacerbates problems like the joke about "minimum years of experience".
bitwize 6y ago
Crooters are by and large the scum of the earth, and clueless to boot. I can't count how many times I've been asked what the "front end" and "back end" were on my job at the robotics company -- programming robots! Shouldn't that on its face impress a hiring manager?
benrothke 6y ago
Based on my experience, the 100:1 ratio seems about right. Excellent recruiters are invaluable. The challenge is finding them.

by dsr_ 6y ago

hawk_ 6y ago

they may not understand the buzzwords but do they generate matches that wouldn't have happened otherwise? i don't have an opinion either way but understanding the meaning of the terms seems to be irrelevant to what they do.

dsr_ 6y ago
A random number generator also generates matches that would not have happened otherwise. I think it is odd, in Hacker News, to see the opinion that semantics don't really matter. Java vs JavaScript. Linux vs Linux Kernel. FPGA vs LPGA vs RPG vs RPG vs RPG-III. Those are all basically the same, right? (Field programmable, ladies' professional rocket-propelled golf role-playing report generation language: there's probably three jobs at game studios that could use all that, actually.)
- hawk_ 6y ago
  perhaps I didn't fully explain that. my point was that the most direct criteria for a recruiter's performance would be how many matches they made compared to a primitive automaton. whether that requires understanding buzzwords may be true but isn't self evident. it's a bit like SV's obsession with whiteboarding. too many people in SV conflate good performance at whiteboarding with good performance at work. the true measure still is good performance at work though.
ugh123 6y ago
If they don't understand the meaning of terms in a resume and how that may or may not align with the requirements of the job, then what value do recruiters bring? If they're merely there to "match" on buzzwords and technical jargon- then that could easily be done by software. What else do tech recruiters bring to the table?
- imnotlost 6y ago
  Kind of like when two realtors pretend they're adding $100K of value to a transaction...
  - Judgmentality 6y ago
    The difference is the realtors want you to pay them money for their services. The recruiters want to pay you money for your services.
    - svachalek 6y ago
      Sort of. They sell your services to a company and make money on the sale. Even recruiters that technically work in-house for a company are usually on contract and won't be there long, I really doubt they are thinking about their job as paying you for something they want.
      - Judgmentality 6y ago
        I meant from the perspective of the user/consumer/customer. One says "I am very useful, please pay me $100k!" The other says "I think you are very useful, please consider this $100k signing bonus!" Yes, they're both trying to sell you something. But it's very different when someone is trying to take your money and someone is trying to offer you money.
        ak217 6y ago
        But it's not their bonus to give. The recruiters' incentives are structured the same way as the realtors: they're facilitating a transaction while taking a commission. Sell-side realtor:employer-side recruiter::buy-side realtor:employee-side recruiter. The main difference is that you're not legally obligated to go through a recruiter to get a job, so recruiters have to work a bit harder to justify their value.
matsemann 6y ago
I recently had two weird experiences: One asking about my Elm experience, but what he said made no sense. Realized after a while he thought it was the same as HELM. Second one: Asked me to tell about what I do in frontend. I explained about how I've used Elm and React professionally for years. I later had to explain that entailed being proficient in JS, as I apparently hadn't ticked all the boxes they were after..
schnevets 6y ago
Normally I would agree - a good salesperson may not need to know the application they are pitching - but the recruiting industry's unapologetic ignorance definitely causes damage to potential employees (especially more vulnerable candidates) and hurts the industry as a whole. It is an (unfortunately) essential part of the tech industry that amplifies common misconceptions like Java == Javascript and exacerbates problems like the joke about "minimum years of experience".

bitwize 6y ago

Crooters are by and large the scum of the earth, and clueless to boot. I can't count how many times I've been asked what the "front end" and "back end" were on my job at the robotics company -- programming robots! Shouldn't that on its face impress a hiring manager?

benrothke 6y ago

Based on my experience, the 100:1 ratio seems about right. Excellent recruiters are invaluable. The challenge is finding them.