3 ms·
> the company has to waste at least the same amount of time on it as they require me to If you are good, you will most likely get a job within a relatively few
by kybernetikos 5y ago
> the company has to waste at least the same amount of time on it as they require me to
If you are good, you will most likely get a job within a relatively few interviews. For the roles I'm trying to hire at the moment, we need to screen many tens of candidates, sometimes into the hundreds to find people who meet the basic competence level needed. As long as you are getting the outcome you desire and the market is as hot as it is, your rule is fine for you, but I think proposing it as a general principle doesn't work, because the scale of jobs you are considering is so much smaller than the scale of candidates we have to consider to find someone appropriate.
I don't know what the answer is, but there has always been a shocking number of people with totally legitimate looking CVs and university credentials who apply for software development jobs without being able to read a line of code, let alone produce any.
- michaelt 5y agoIf you're having hundreds of resumes pass resume screening for every hire you make, have you considered your resume screening might not be working very well?
- kybernetikos 5y agoOf course! That's the exact problem we're talking about here. Résumés screens don't work very well - they provide much less information about whether or not someone can actually solve problems with code than almost anyone would expect. That's the entire reason that a simple programming task like 'fizzbuzz' has value. It's the reason people want candidates to do something in addition to providing their résumé.