5 ms·

It sounds like you're a tech recruiter or another guy from big corporate heritage. I say this because your answers are a shining paragon of why most of the part

It sounds like you're a tech recruiter or another guy from big corporate heritage. I say this because your answers are a shining paragon of why most of the participants at HN avoid and loathe big corporate jobs. Do you have any particular programming qualifications yourself? I'm curious. While it is of course a great sign that you are reading HN, it doesn't sound like you know how to rate candidates in an objective and independent fashion. Let me tell you that many of the legends in this field didn't finish or didn't attend college (and some didn't even finish high school) merely because college is really silly.

Radim 15y ago
Your "legends" have (had) no need to apply for jobs, so your point seems off-topic. More importantly, I found your comment unnecessarily offensive. The post you're replying to was fairly amicable and argued to the point, imo.
- cookiecaper 15y ago
  I don't believe my response was offensive and I agree that the OP is arguing his point within bounds. I just strongly disagree with that point, and as stated, believe it is typical of a non-technical hiring manager instead of an "in the trenches" programmer. How would you have preferred I phrased my response? I don't think any part is "unnecessarily offensive". It is a forgone conclusion that people on HN don't want to work for big companies, so if he is a hiring manager, he shouldn't be surprised.
  - bane 15y ago
    I wasn't offended, and I'm not a hiring manager. But I've definitely done most of my hiring in large boring mega corps. For the small startups I've worked for, willingness to work at a small startup often has major weight in the decision process and can overcome other problems that might exclude them from big corp's process.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      I'm personally familiar with the hiring processes at most of the big "mega corps" in the software industry (ie, places where software is the company's key profit center and not a cost center). So, because lots of people are reading this thread, let me clear this up right now: You do not need an "Education" section on your resume to get a job interview at any software company in the valley you'd ever want to work at. If you're interested in the kind of company 'bane appears to hire for, I'd recommend reading this first: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1994193 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1994193
      - bane 15y ago
        Again, disagree and wasn't aware we were restricting ourselves to only the Valley. Yes, you need an education section on your resume. Only apply to companies that you wish to work for. Some will care about it, others won't. Those that don't care won't look at it, those that do will be glad you put it on. It's a Pascal's wager of sorts. If you are applying to work at Matasano, by all means, delete it from your resume. I've hired (or participated in the hiring team for) several hundred people for large companies (~35,000 employees, ~45,000 employees, ~125,000 employees respectively) and small (2 employees, 11 employees, 5 employees, 15 employees), for contract work (110 FTEs, 510 FTEs, 30 FTEs) and medium to large projects (30 FTEs, 80 FTEs). I've also cross-hired from different departments, projects, and programs. I've personally seen probably on the order of 10,000 resumes. I've never seen a resume of a person that was eventually hired that lacked at least a minimal education section -- and it didn't have to be a college degree. I've sought out specific hires and have been sought out. I've hired for positions that are salary only, salary + comission, salary + options, salary + direct stock, or some mix. I've hired people with highly specialized skillsets and generalists. I've hired sales people, programmers, analysts, executives, executive assistants, operations managers, operations staff, designers, musicians (yes!) and receptionists. I've never like using recruiters or big job sites. I prefer to hire people with passion for what they do, and interview for personality as well as technical aptitude. You don't always get that luxury depending on the market and immediate business needs, but it's highly desired. Education is a big plus, but I've never turned down somebody because of a lack of if they make up for it in experience, portfolio or other compensating factors. I've never regretted a candidate I turned down. I can count on one hand people that slipped through my radar and ended up as real duds. I can count on two hands people that I turned down that were picked up by other companies and turned out to be real duds for them. I've had to personally work with most of my hires either as a direct colleague, a report, or as a manager. Who else uses a process not entirely dissimilar? Any company that asks for a resume, then gives you an interview (of any sort) based on that initial look at you. This includes, Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, Intel, Cisco, Oracle and major software focused divisions of other companies like SAIC, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrup Grumman, etc. Unless the company has a site called "apply to work here" where you just give them your name and a callback #, they care about your resume on some level. Even if it's just to have it on file to cover their asses in case of a bad hire. If you don't want to work for these companies, that's cool. I don't either, and I have the luxury of not doing that at present since I work for a 10 person startup in my day job (and a two person for my night job). But I still consult with #52, #217 and #219 on the 2011 Fortune 500 almost weekly on hiring people. But I'm just here to tell you the "way it is" (TM). If you want to be considered at these places, and unless you have some kind of other way of demonstrating your personal awesomeness, put an education section down.
bane 15y ago
Yes, I have some technical chops - started coding on a TRS-80 Color Computer II in the 80s and never stopped. It's not something I do much of anymore (sadly) as a growing crop of grey hair has convinced my day job c-levels to shovel me into managing groups of technical people. I also do lots of work outside of pure development in my day job, and it has wildly different sets of requirements, but the process is more of less the same. I've hired and managed a few more of these types than straight developers. But I've managed to have about the same success with both, or if we did hire duds for some reason (CFOs cousin or whatever), I noted the potential problems in their file and came out reasonably accurate. The problem with trying to hire the next legend in the field is that more often than not, you are not hiring the next legend in the field no matter how they feel about themselves. That's why legends are notable, they're unique and rare. If they are really that awesome, they'll become legends in their own time and you'll know about them before their resume hits your inbox. Building a hiring process for legends is fraught with peril. Legends are almost by definition not hire-able around repeatable hiring processes. So companies fake a process. Some companies select for specific schools -- like the too often true stereotype of top finance firms only hiring Harvard/Yale grads or top tech firms only hiring Stanford/MIT types. I've even heard of some hiring with a heavy weight on SAT scores or average KLOC per month! As much as we all like to think of the lone swashbuckler programmer, coding his way to greatness in the fewest undocumented KLOCs possible, I'm hiring people to build actual things that other programmers of various talent levels from other organizations might have to work on months or years later long after my rockstar has moved on to greener pastures because we didn't offer him the office chair he wanted or whatever. In other words, I'm hiring for the best of typical. I need engineers, not crusading nights. I'm building the Golden Gate Bridge or the Empire State Building, not the Pioneer Space probe or filming and episode of MacGuyver. I've hired the rockstars before, there's a reason organizations tend to eventually move on to other processes. I've worked with some absolutely unknown solid developers who I'd put up against the best in the field any day of the week, because they produced miracles on time and within budget. Absolutely stunning, elegant, rock solid software. But I'd rather focus on their steady solid performance over time. Rather than have a rockstar come in and dump down a few thousand lines of impenetrable code then flame out. I've found that solid, steady developers will ultimately outperform those guys every time. They'll do it right, and the bridge won't fall down or the building won't fall over. If you are looking at tremendous number of resumes per week, you have to build a hiring process that selects for the best of typical. If you spot a super star in the pile, by all means talk to them, but you'll eventually find that most of the time they have overinflated egos. Hiring people is almost exactly like American Idol. 90% of all the candidates you see are bad, often spectacularly, often embarrassingly. The worst suffer from some of the most intense Dunning-Kruger effects I've ever seen. But you might find an honest to gosh amazing developer every once in a while and it's worth it to hire them. But don't build a process trying to find them, they'll find you. If you don't build this kind of selective process, you'll spend literally all of your waking hours interviewing people. If you like this kind of thing, and your company is willing to let you do this, awesome. I have other things to do. An all day technical interview sounds great, but now do this with 30+ candidates. Bye bye month of November. You need to weed people out and get it down to a manageable pool that you can then focus your time on. I'm know what I'm saying may sound harsh or overly selective based on some arbitrary metric but it's all there for very good, repeatable reasons. But in practice these are only guidelines. If you went to school, awesome for you, I don't care where, be prepared to talk intelligently about the experience, be proud that you demonstrated the ability to complete a grueling, often mindless multi-year project on your own. If you didn't, but managed to autodidact your way to a great skill set, fantastic, be prepared to show and talk about why that worked better for you than going to school.
Confusion 15y ago
Even more legends did finish an education -- or even remained in academia.

Radim 15y ago

Your "legends" have (had) no need to apply for jobs, so your point seems off-topic. More importantly, I found your comment unnecessarily offensive. The post you're replying to was fairly amicable and argued to the point, imo.

cookiecaper 15y ago
I don't believe my response was offensive and I agree that the OP is arguing his point within bounds. I just strongly disagree with that point, and as stated, believe it is typical of a non-technical hiring manager instead of an "in the trenches" programmer. How would you have preferred I phrased my response? I don't think any part is "unnecessarily offensive". It is a forgone conclusion that people on HN don't want to work for big companies, so if he is a hiring manager, he shouldn't be surprised.
- bane 15y ago
  I wasn't offended, and I'm not a hiring manager. But I've definitely done most of my hiring in large boring mega corps. For the small startups I've worked for, willingness to work at a small startup often has major weight in the decision process and can overcome other problems that might exclude them from big corp's process.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    I'm personally familiar with the hiring processes at most of the big "mega corps" in the software industry (ie, places where software is the company's key profit center and not a cost center). So, because lots of people are reading this thread, let me clear this up right now: You do not need an "Education" section on your resume to get a job interview at any software company in the valley you'd ever want to work at. If you're interested in the kind of company 'bane appears to hire for, I'd recommend reading this first: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1994193 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1994193
    - bane 15y ago
      Again, disagree and wasn't aware we were restricting ourselves to only the Valley. Yes, you need an education section on your resume. Only apply to companies that you wish to work for. Some will care about it, others won't. Those that don't care won't look at it, those that do will be glad you put it on. It's a Pascal's wager of sorts. If you are applying to work at Matasano, by all means, delete it from your resume. I've hired (or participated in the hiring team for) several hundred people for large companies (~35,000 employees, ~45,000 employees, ~125,000 employees respectively) and small (2 employees, 11 employees, 5 employees, 15 employees), for contract work (110 FTEs, 510 FTEs, 30 FTEs) and medium to large projects (30 FTEs, 80 FTEs). I've also cross-hired from different departments, projects, and programs. I've personally seen probably on the order of 10,000 resumes. I've never seen a resume of a person that was eventually hired that lacked at least a minimal education section -- and it didn't have to be a college degree. I've sought out specific hires and have been sought out. I've hired for positions that are salary only, salary + comission, salary + options, salary + direct stock, or some mix. I've hired people with highly specialized skillsets and generalists. I've hired sales people, programmers, analysts, executives, executive assistants, operations managers, operations staff, designers, musicians (yes!) and receptionists. I've never like using recruiters or big job sites. I prefer to hire people with passion for what they do, and interview for personality as well as technical aptitude. You don't always get that luxury depending on the market and immediate business needs, but it's highly desired. Education is a big plus, but I've never turned down somebody because of a lack of if they make up for it in experience, portfolio or other compensating factors. I've never regretted a candidate I turned down. I can count on one hand people that slipped through my radar and ended up as real duds. I can count on two hands people that I turned down that were picked up by other companies and turned out to be real duds for them. I've had to personally work with most of my hires either as a direct colleague, a report, or as a manager. Who else uses a process not entirely dissimilar? Any company that asks for a resume, then gives you an interview (of any sort) based on that initial look at you. This includes, Google, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, Intel, Cisco, Oracle and major software focused divisions of other companies like SAIC, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrup Grumman, etc. Unless the company has a site called "apply to work here" where you just give them your name and a callback #, they care about your resume on some level. Even if it's just to have it on file to cover their asses in case of a bad hire. If you don't want to work for these companies, that's cool. I don't either, and I have the luxury of not doing that at present since I work for a 10 person startup in my day job (and a two person for my night job). But I still consult with #52, #217 and #219 on the 2011 Fortune 500 almost weekly on hiring people. But I'm just here to tell you the "way it is" (TM). If you want to be considered at these places, and unless you have some kind of other way of demonstrating your personal awesomeness, put an education section down.

bane 15y ago

Yes, I have some technical chops - started coding on a TRS-80 Color Computer II in the 80s and never stopped. It's not something I do much of anymore (sadly) as a growing crop of grey hair has convinced my day job c-levels to shovel me into managing groups of technical people. I also do lots of work outside of pure development in my day job, and it has wildly different sets of requirements, but the process is more of less the same. I've hired and managed a few more of these types than straight developers. But I've managed to have about the same success with both, or if we did hire duds for some reason (CFOs cousin or whatever), I noted the potential problems in their file and came out reasonably accurate. The problem with trying to hire the next legend in the field is that more often than not, you are not hiring the next legend in the field no matter how they feel about themselves. That's why legends are notable, they're unique and rare. If they are really that awesome, they'll become legends in their own time and you'll know about them before their resume hits your inbox. Building a hiring process for legends is fraught with peril. Legends are almost by definition not hire-able around repeatable hiring processes. So companies fake a process. Some companies select for specific schools -- like the too often true stereotype of top finance firms only hiring Harvard/Yale grads or top tech firms only hiring Stanford/MIT types. I've even heard of some hiring with a heavy weight on SAT scores or average KLOC per month! As much as we all like to think of the lone swashbuckler programmer, coding his way to greatness in the fewest undocumented KLOCs possible, I'm hiring people to build actual things that other programmers of various talent levels from other organizations might have to work on months or years later long after my rockstar has moved on to greener pastures because we didn't offer him the office chair he wanted or whatever. In other words, I'm hiring for the best of typical. I need engineers, not crusading nights. I'm building the Golden Gate Bridge or the Empire State Building, not the Pioneer Space probe or filming and episode of MacGuyver. I've hired the rockstars before, there's a reason organizations tend to eventually move on to other processes. I've worked with some absolutely unknown solid developers who I'd put up against the best in the field any day of the week, because they produced miracles on time and within budget. Absolutely stunning, elegant, rock solid software. But I'd rather focus on their steady solid performance over time. Rather than have a rockstar come in and dump down a few thousand lines of impenetrable code then flame out. I've found that solid, steady developers will ultimately outperform those guys every time. They'll do it right, and the bridge won't fall down or the building won't fall over. If you are looking at tremendous number of resumes per week, you have to build a hiring process that selects for the best of typical. If you spot a super star in the pile, by all means talk to them, but you'll eventually find that most of the time they have overinflated egos. Hiring people is almost exactly like American Idol. 90% of all the candidates you see are bad, often spectacularly, often embarrassingly. The worst suffer from some of the most intense Dunning-Kruger effects I've ever seen. But you might find an honest to gosh amazing developer every once in a while and it's worth it to hire them. But don't build a process trying to find them, they'll find you. If you don't build this kind of selective process, you'll spend literally all of your waking hours interviewing people. If you like this kind of thing, and your company is willing to let you do this, awesome. I have other things to do. An all day technical interview sounds great, but now do this with 30+ candidates. Bye bye month of November. You need to weed people out and get it down to a manageable pool that you can then focus your time on. I'm know what I'm saying may sound harsh or overly selective based on some arbitrary metric but it's all there for very good, repeatable reasons. But in practice these are only guidelines. If you went to school, awesome for you, I don't care where, be prepared to talk intelligently about the experience, be proud that you demonstrated the ability to complete a grueling, often mindless multi-year project on your own. If you didn't, but managed to autodidact your way to a great skill set, fantastic, be prepared to show and talk about why that worked better for you than going to school.

Confusion 15y ago

Even more legends did finish an education -- or even remained in academia.