4 ms·

> To play devil's advocate, having a standardized process for all candidates has some benefits. I've witnessed otherwise stellar candidates with amazing open so

> To play devil's advocate, having a standardized process for all candidates has some benefits. I've witnessed otherwise stellar candidates with amazing open source contributions absolutely bomb coding interviews. Real "write a function that does X" in whatever language you're comfortable with and whatever tools or resources you want. Simple stuff. I'm not sure if you're playing devil's advocate very well here, because this suggests to me that the interview process did not work well. Do you want to hire someone who can write a binary tree insertion in 30 minutes, or someone who can make amazing contributions to real software projects? > So yeah maybe the Big O stuff is lame, but sometimes it's also a filter for entitlement on the behalf of the candidate. Hiring isn't hard, but it's not easy. My point wasn't that hiring is easy or even that programming quizzes do not have a part in interviews. It is the level of contempt that some of these companies and their recruiters and hiring processes show to people. To be fair I did open myself up to it having responded to an unsolicited message, but I always try to politely decline if I get a message from a real person. They responded with something interesting and hooked me to agree to a call. I made it clear I was not interviewing for any position, and again while on the actual call I declined the Big O question. It just shows they were perfectly happy to send out probably mass spams and waste people's time, but were not willing to even read what I wrote or listen to me, or worse they did and decided they'd just ignore what I said anyway. My point is treating people like people, not like bycatch in your drag net. Simple stuff.

xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
> I'm not sure if you're playing devil's advocate very well here, because this suggests to me that the interview process did not work well. Do you want to hire someone who can write a binary tree insertion in 30 minutes, or someone who can make amazing contributions to real software projects? Most companies want malleable, fungible engineers. Most companies are not stable, something is usually in flux -- projects, teams, organizations, business models. Most managers would rather have someone who can write a binary tree insertion in 30 minutes. But that is not how I personally hire, it's just reality. I'd rather have someone I can work with. In my experience, a lot of big open source contributors are not good colleagues. Are they going to focus on their job or spend their hours in the office working on their passion? Are they going to put their head down and get the work done or write essays debating in a mailing list? If we can't even have a conversation about algorithm complexity then there are better ways I can spend my time. > It is the level of contempt that some of these companies and their recruiters and hiring processes show to people. I really don't think this is true contempt, at least not usually. Recruiters, for better or for worse, vary widely. They are rarely good representations of the rest of the business. They're usually just sharks. A good recruiter is worth their weight in gold. But mostly they're ignorant, greedy, and have no care for you or the company you're interviewing for. > It just shows they were perfectly happy to send out probably mass spams and waste people's time, but were not willing to even read what I wrote or listen to me, or worse they did and decided they'd just ignore what I said anyway. Look, I'll be honest. I've conducted nearly a thousand interviews. I've hired at FAANGs, unicorns, YC companies. I almost never look at a candidate's resume/CV. If I'm not doing a coding interview and I want you to go into detail about something you worked on, I might take a glance. But otherwise, I actually do not care. I don't have time to peruse your GitHub profile or past projects. I don't even have time. One in a hundred applicants even get interviews, and I'm often interviewing 2-3 times a week. If it's important to you, tell me about it! I'd rather talk to you than read about you! In my experience, the resume/CV/published work is not a strong signal for making a good hire. It sounds like it's already helped you get your foot in the door, I wouldn't recommend expecting it to do anything more. I'm sorry you had a shitty experience with this company, but I encourage you to be humble and give them the benefit of the doubt. Unless they're a tiny, boutique company with a lifestyle or OSS-focused culture, they are busy people. If they don't ask these questions, then more often than not, by the time we're in a room or on a call together it's a waste of both our time.
- borroka 5y ago
  I apologize for the "one-liner". I am busy, I interview and hire many people, and I read resumes. You can do it too, it is one page and it is often interesting, including the lies here and there that disqualify candidates.
- LadyCailin 5y ago
  > One in a hundred applicants even get interviews If you don’t bother to read the CV, who do you even pick to interview? Randomly?
  - refactor_master 5y ago
    Of course. You wouldn’t want an unlucky candidate.
    - Nevermark 5y ago
      My apologies to the HN Gods for this low quality comment. But that struck me as extremely funny. On a serious dystopian note, luck really does play the dominant role in everything.
      - xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
        All jokes aside, in my experience it's nearly a FIFO, with obviously unqualified candidates being weeded out. If you have 3-400 people apply for a position, you maybe phone screen somewhere from 4-10 and by the time you're closer to 10 you've already conducted 3-4 onsites and put out at least one offer.
- DJHenk 5y ago
  > I'd rather have someone I can work with. > I almost never look at a candidate's resume/CV. > I don't have time to peruse your GitHub profile or past projects. I don't even have time. So you want someone you can work with, but you don't want to spend a couple of seconds to look at who you're talking to. Which is, you know, sort of the most basic of things necessary to get an actual relationship started. This goes both ways. If you don't even want to spend a few minutes to assess whether the resume or the projects are interesting to you, then why on earth would the candidate spare you any time or energy?

xyzzy_plugh 5y ago

> I'm not sure if you're playing devil's advocate very well here, because this suggests to me that the interview process did not work well. Do you want to hire someone who can write a binary tree insertion in 30 minutes, or someone who can make amazing contributions to real software projects? Most companies want malleable, fungible engineers. Most companies are not stable, something is usually in flux -- projects, teams, organizations, business models. Most managers would rather have someone who can write a binary tree insertion in 30 minutes. But that is not how I personally hire, it's just reality. I'd rather have someone I can work with. In my experience, a lot of big open source contributors are not good colleagues. Are they going to focus on their job or spend their hours in the office working on their passion? Are they going to put their head down and get the work done or write essays debating in a mailing list? If we can't even have a conversation about algorithm complexity then there are better ways I can spend my time. > It is the level of contempt that some of these companies and their recruiters and hiring processes show to people. I really don't think this is true contempt, at least not usually. Recruiters, for better or for worse, vary widely. They are rarely good representations of the rest of the business. They're usually just sharks. A good recruiter is worth their weight in gold. But mostly they're ignorant, greedy, and have no care for you or the company you're interviewing for. > It just shows they were perfectly happy to send out probably mass spams and waste people's time, but were not willing to even read what I wrote or listen to me, or worse they did and decided they'd just ignore what I said anyway. Look, I'll be honest. I've conducted nearly a thousand interviews. I've hired at FAANGs, unicorns, YC companies. I almost never look at a candidate's resume/CV. If I'm not doing a coding interview and I want you to go into detail about something you worked on, I might take a glance. But otherwise, I actually do not care. I don't have time to peruse your GitHub profile or past projects. I don't even have time. One in a hundred applicants even get interviews, and I'm often interviewing 2-3 times a week. If it's important to you, tell me about it! I'd rather talk to you than read about you! In my experience, the resume/CV/published work is not a strong signal for making a good hire. It sounds like it's already helped you get your foot in the door, I wouldn't recommend expecting it to do anything more. I'm sorry you had a shitty experience with this company, but I encourage you to be humble and give them the benefit of the doubt. Unless they're a tiny, boutique company with a lifestyle or OSS-focused culture, they are busy people. If they don't ask these questions, then more often than not, by the time we're in a room or on a call together it's a waste of both our time.

borroka 5y ago
I apologize for the "one-liner". I am busy, I interview and hire many people, and I read resumes. You can do it too, it is one page and it is often interesting, including the lies here and there that disqualify candidates.
LadyCailin 5y ago
> One in a hundred applicants even get interviews If you don’t bother to read the CV, who do you even pick to interview? Randomly?
- refactor_master 5y ago
  Of course. You wouldn’t want an unlucky candidate.
  - Nevermark 5y ago
    My apologies to the HN Gods for this low quality comment. But that struck me as extremely funny. On a serious dystopian note, luck really does play the dominant role in everything.
    - xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
      All jokes aside, in my experience it's nearly a FIFO, with obviously unqualified candidates being weeded out. If you have 3-400 people apply for a position, you maybe phone screen somewhere from 4-10 and by the time you're closer to 10 you've already conducted 3-4 onsites and put out at least one offer.
DJHenk 5y ago
> I'd rather have someone I can work with. > I almost never look at a candidate's resume/CV. > I don't have time to peruse your GitHub profile or past projects. I don't even have time. So you want someone you can work with, but you don't want to spend a couple of seconds to look at who you're talking to. Which is, you know, sort of the most basic of things necessary to get an actual relationship started. This goes both ways. If you don't even want to spend a few minutes to assess whether the resume or the projects are interesting to you, then why on earth would the candidate spare you any time or energy?