4 ms·

> some of these are unreal. Can’t imagine how the manager justifies this It seems pretty clear to me that the manager in that story does not want to hire someo

• mistrial9 5y ago
  people for whom the system is working, affirm that the system is working.. check
  • dahart 5y ago
    I asked an honest question about how the system isn’t working, and admitted right up front that I might be ignorant of real systemic problems. Maybe you could elaborate and/or provide evidence that the system isn’t working? Who is it not working for, and how is it not working?
  • filoleg 5y ago
    This is just disingenuous, because it can also be easily stated as “people for whom the system isn’t working, affirm that the system isn’t working.” Except it is much easier to state that the system is not working, because one can easily attribute personal failures to the failures of the system. I am yet to meet a clearly skilled software engineer who took a bit of time to study for interviews who couldn’t pass the interviews. And we aren’t talking some insane prep, we are talking either a couple of weekends or an hour a day for a month at the very most. To add, it is mostly upfront work, and you dont need that much time to study later on. With every interview, I need less and less time to study in the future. Back in college, i used to study intensely for those. But many years later, I find it sufficient to refresh by grinding leetcode for just one weekend being enough to pass your typical FAANG interview. Paper credentials don’t mean much, and relying on those is setting yourself up for some poor experiences. I’ve seen candidates with 15+ years of experience and impressive resumes not being able to code their way out of a wet paperbag. We are talking not being able to solve actual FizzBuzz in a language of their choice, which is mindboggling, as it is literally just a for-loop and 3 if-conditionals (or 2, if you want to be fancy and use string concatenation).
    • mistrial9 5y ago
      disingenuous -> "stated with an intention to be deceptive" "I am yet to meet a clearly skilled software engineer who" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy "Paper credentials don’t mean much" other employers here disagree on that particular point
      • filoleg 5y ago
        >> "Paper credentials don’t mean much" > other employers here disagree on that particular point I didn't mean it in a sense that paper credentials don't matter, period. I assumed it was obvious in the context what I actually meant, but that's my mistake, so let me clarify. "Paper credentials don't mean much" when you are trying to really assess skills of someone. Which is evident by my example of many people with impressive resumes not being able to code their way out of a wet paperbag. > disingenuous -> "stated with an intention to be deceptive" I admit, I used the closest word that was somewhat expressing the point I was trying to make. I still cannot think of a better word. So if someone can provide a word that is more fitting for "a situation when someone makes an assertive statement about something, without trying to consider the other side of the equation at all, which leads to a conclusion that simply affirms what the person is saying", it would be more than welcome.
• Rayhem 5y ago
  > I’ve only ever seen it in the context of frustrated newbie candidates complaining that they have to put in some non-coding effort in order to get hired. This surprises me because I've generally heard hiring is broken because of how it affects seasoned programmers. The argument, as I understand it, is that "broken" interviews largely consist of "grind leetcode and solve my ever-more-specific algorithmic challenges" that have very, very little to do with the actual nature of the work or a candidate's general aptitude.
  • dahart 5y ago
    I know many many seasoned programmers, both in and out of the Bay Area, and I haven’t met any seasoned programmers who deserve to get a job but can’t. Even if companies are asking for leetcode grinding, what I’m asking about is the outcome - what hiring or unemployment numbers actually demonstrate that hiring is ineffective somehow? It is true that some companies do coding challenges as part of the interview process, one part of many. I’ve never heard of an interview process where leetcode style puzzles are the whole interview, or even a majority. I had one job in the recent past that had an interview coding challenge (actually it’s the only job I’ve ever had that asked for coding during the interview), and I totally enjoyed the coding challenge. It wasn’t leetcode, and I was allowed my choice of language, but it was on the spot puzzle solving unrelated to the eventual work, but definitely related to my general aptitude. It certainly might be unrelated to the work, but it’s a bad assumption, I think to claim that doing a little programming has nothing to do with a candidate’s general aptitude. I have seen & heard of a few seasoned programmers getting upset when they are asked to write code on the spot, and believing that their years of experience and heavy resumes should exempt them from demonstrating their ability to write code during the interview. I personally interviewed one guy who did that, and he was rejected specifically because of his attitude; companies don’t want bitter old-timers who refuse to do some dirty work, nobody is above being part of the team, sometimes doing boring tasks, and always learning new things. I don’t really identify with seasoned programmers who feel like they shouldn’t have to demonstrate their abilities, who don’t understand that people pad resumes all the time and that interviewers might not take your promises at face value. There are people interviewing who have experience and can’t code their way out of a paper bag, so these coding challenges are filtering for that. But people who want to write code full time should have no trouble attempting and even enjoying some code writing during the interview, no?
• flandish 5y ago
  I've seen it before (with my own eyes) where a manager would make hurdles like this... then go on to say, "We have found no acceptable candidates we need to use consultants for this project." Then hire consultants, paying them out of the project's budget. Then... use the "data" that show his operational expenses, as a department, are low because he only really needs 3 FTEs instead of 6. (Excluding the 3 consultants that don't count as FTEs...)
  • dahart 5y ago
    To be clear, I’m completely fully aware that bullshit and bad stuff really does happen. There are bad managers, and there are bad companies. There are places where interviews are a true waste of time, or worse where employment is a waste of time. The manager/company in the story sounds like it might be one of them. That much has always been true. But I’m asking for more than anecdotes, I’m asking for higher level and broader evidence that people who are capable and qualified are failing to get a job anywhere for long periods of time. At least, that what I assume must be meant by “hiring is broken”. Alternatively, just a better explanation for what broken means and how to fix it. I haven’t yet seen a very strong argument & evidence for hiring in general being “broken”, so while I’m obviously a little skeptical, I’m also curious to question my own assumptions and to be shown why and how hiring in general isn’t working for a large group of people. Having to do several interviews before getting a job was always expected. Is it worse than that across the board?
  • raincom 5y ago
    Maybe, the manager was getting a cut from the staffing company that sends consultants.