4 ms·

I hope all of these interview assessment companies go out of business. They don't produce quality candidates, and they're dehumanizing for the folks that have

I hope all of these interview assessment companies go out of business. They don't produce quality candidates, and they're dehumanizing for the folks that have to use them.

warent 4y ago
This is not the feedback I've received, and I conducted like nearly 1000 interviews with Karat. On average we actually heard from people that Karat was their best experience by far, and that we made them feel like we were treating them as worthy individuals. Even people who got declined usually still left feeling quite positive, because we would turn the obviously-failed interview into, basically, a free hour coaching / teaching session for them to succeed next time.
- coward123 4y ago
  My experience was the same as tedvim above - it was utterly dehumanizing and there's no way I want that either for myself or for the people I hire. The interviewers were smug little shits who didn't take feedback to ask questions relevant to the position. Further - you guys lurk all over HN commenting like this every time there's an interview thread. It's submarining and it's gross.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    The rules at Karat may be that giving any kind of help pretty much automatically disqualifies the candidate, so technically they're better off giving you no help at all in the hopes you make as much progress on your own rather than ruining your interview by giving you help prematurely.
    - jamiepenney 4y ago
      Yep pretty much this. I was a contract interviewer with Karat for a few years and taught people how to conduct interviews. There's a graded scale of assistance, anything more than gentle prompting to re-read your code or the error output starts counting against you. If I have to point out a block of code or even a line, then that's getting to the point that most clients will pass you over when they review your interview, so the rules are we don't give that stuff proactively.
      - Nextgrid 4y ago
        I used the "may" word as I wasn't sure it's something we are meant to be disclosing, but now that the cat is out of the bag you are indeed 100% correct and this matches my experience. One thing I didn't appreciate with these rules from a candidate perspective (and encouraged my decision not to continue my onboarding with Karat), there seems to be no way to learn from the process. I actually bombed my practice interview (and knew it would happen even before the interview) but the interviewer was very reluctant (due to the above rules) to actually solve the problem with me, where as a conventional non-Karat failed interview would at least give me the solution in the end and I'd at least learn something.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    "not trying to sell me a product" indeed.
  - IshKebab 4y ago
    Presumably it depends on the interviewer. And tbf it seems like warent is the only person here defending them. Still I don't know if I would trust hiring to unknown potentially awful interviewers.
    - coward123 4y ago
      Their people pop up in every hiring thread on HN, it isn't just warent and it isn't the first time.
- confidantlake 4y ago
  There is nothing to gain from giving negative feedback. If Karat succeeds in becoming the gatekeeper for interviews it would be a really bad idea to get on their bad side.
verteu 4y ago
How so? I had a positive (applicant) experience with TB. It saved me time by providing a unified phone screen for several companies.
newaccount2023 4y ago
[dead]
fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
I’ve only been interviewed through Karat once, but it was a positive experience. It was a coding screen round. The interviewer was personable and fun to talk to, which made the whole process more pleasant. He was skilled at listening and asking the right questions to gauge where I was at throughout the conversation. He also transitioned smoothly into follow-up questions, and I got the impression overall that there was a wide range of skill levels he could evaluate (ie. the result was not just pass/fail, there was a high ceiling). Given the usual nature of coding screens - intentionally generic and standardized, so a company can use the same screening process for different teams - it made a lot of sense to me that a task like that could be outsourced. Since you are usually not developing a relationship with the interviewer at that point, there’s no real reason they need to be and employee of the company you are interviewing for. A couple of times I’ve had coding screens where the interviewer didn’t seem to be paying attention. Since some engineers get forced to do these screens, they might not be focused on giving a good candidate experience.
- madamelic 4y ago
  > a company can use the same screening process for different teams - it made a lot of sense to me that a task like that could be outsourced It actually makes a lot of sense to do it this way on both ends. You know the interviewer is going to be a good interviewer who knows what they are doing & how to judge you. The interviewer can be completely independent from the decision without having bias or judgement attached to where the candidate ends up. I've certainly had interviews where I knew I was doomed from the second I walked in the door because the interviewer was in a bad mood, they didn't enunciate clearly, just a bad vibe, whatever. That sucks as a candidate. This situation would make a fairly demeaning process slightly better if done well.
FlyingSnake 4y ago
Speaking as an hiring manager: Interviewing and finding the right talent is hard and there will always be people swayed by these salesmen selling a quick solution to tired companies. The lucrative cottage industry of interview assessments won't be going down so soon as long as there are perverse incentives and gatekeeping in place.
azemetre 4y ago
Agreed, as I progress through my career I'm starting to value companies that are willing to actually speak to me instead of using these middleware services to find out if I'm even qualified. It's a complete time waste for me (and them) to pass these assessments and realize the culture of the team is something I want nothing to be a part of.
x_juisnka 4y ago
This is a very honest assessment. If a 3rd party service like Karat has more trust with an employer than their own employees in terms of what is needed for that specific employee's role within their own company then that is a sign of poor management and practices.

I hope all of these interview assessment companies go out of business. They don't produce quality candidates, and they're dehumanizing for the folks that have to use them.

warent 4y ago

This is not the feedback I've received, and I conducted like nearly 1000 interviews with Karat. On average we actually heard from people that Karat was their best experience by far, and that we made them feel like we were treating them as worthy individuals. Even people who got declined usually still left feeling quite positive, because we would turn the obviously-failed interview into, basically, a free hour coaching / teaching session for them to succeed next time.

coward123 4y ago
My experience was the same as tedvim above - it was utterly dehumanizing and there's no way I want that either for myself or for the people I hire. The interviewers were smug little shits who didn't take feedback to ask questions relevant to the position. Further - you guys lurk all over HN commenting like this every time there's an interview thread. It's submarining and it's gross.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  The rules at Karat may be that giving any kind of help pretty much automatically disqualifies the candidate, so technically they're better off giving you no help at all in the hopes you make as much progress on your own rather than ruining your interview by giving you help prematurely.
  - jamiepenney 4y ago
    Yep pretty much this. I was a contract interviewer with Karat for a few years and taught people how to conduct interviews. There's a graded scale of assistance, anything more than gentle prompting to re-read your code or the error output starts counting against you. If I have to point out a block of code or even a line, then that's getting to the point that most clients will pass you over when they review your interview, so the rules are we don't give that stuff proactively.
    - Nextgrid 4y ago
      I used the "may" word as I wasn't sure it's something we are meant to be disclosing, but now that the cat is out of the bag you are indeed 100% correct and this matches my experience. One thing I didn't appreciate with these rules from a candidate perspective (and encouraged my decision not to continue my onboarding with Karat), there seems to be no way to learn from the process. I actually bombed my practice interview (and knew it would happen even before the interview) but the interviewer was very reluctant (due to the above rules) to actually solve the problem with me, where as a conventional non-Karat failed interview would at least give me the solution in the end and I'd at least learn something.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  "not trying to sell me a product" indeed.
- IshKebab 4y ago
  Presumably it depends on the interviewer. And tbf it seems like warent is the only person here defending them. Still I don't know if I would trust hiring to unknown potentially awful interviewers.
  - coward123 4y ago
    Their people pop up in every hiring thread on HN, it isn't just warent and it isn't the first time.
confidantlake 4y ago
There is nothing to gain from giving negative feedback. If Karat succeeds in becoming the gatekeeper for interviews it would be a really bad idea to get on their bad side.

verteu 4y ago

How so? I had a positive (applicant) experience with TB. It saved me time by providing a unified phone screen for several companies.

newaccount2023 4y ago

[dead]

fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago

I’ve only been interviewed through Karat once, but it was a positive experience. It was a coding screen round. The interviewer was personable and fun to talk to, which made the whole process more pleasant. He was skilled at listening and asking the right questions to gauge where I was at throughout the conversation. He also transitioned smoothly into follow-up questions, and I got the impression overall that there was a wide range of skill levels he could evaluate (ie. the result was not just pass/fail, there was a high ceiling). Given the usual nature of coding screens - intentionally generic and standardized, so a company can use the same screening process for different teams - it made a lot of sense to me that a task like that could be outsourced. Since you are usually not developing a relationship with the interviewer at that point, there’s no real reason they need to be and employee of the company you are interviewing for. A couple of times I’ve had coding screens where the interviewer didn’t seem to be paying attention. Since some engineers get forced to do these screens, they might not be focused on giving a good candidate experience.

madamelic 4y ago
> a company can use the same screening process for different teams - it made a lot of sense to me that a task like that could be outsourced It actually makes a lot of sense to do it this way on both ends. You know the interviewer is going to be a good interviewer who knows what they are doing & how to judge you. The interviewer can be completely independent from the decision without having bias or judgement attached to where the candidate ends up. I've certainly had interviews where I knew I was doomed from the second I walked in the door because the interviewer was in a bad mood, they didn't enunciate clearly, just a bad vibe, whatever. That sucks as a candidate. This situation would make a fairly demeaning process slightly better if done well.

FlyingSnake 4y ago

Speaking as an hiring manager: Interviewing and finding the right talent is hard and there will always be people swayed by these salesmen selling a quick solution to tired companies. The lucrative cottage industry of interview assessments won't be going down so soon as long as there are perverse incentives and gatekeeping in place.

azemetre 4y ago

Agreed, as I progress through my career I'm starting to value companies that are willing to actually speak to me instead of using these middleware services to find out if I'm even qualified. It's a complete time waste for me (and them) to pass these assessments and realize the culture of the team is something I want nothing to be a part of.

x_juisnka 4y ago

This is a very honest assessment. If a 3rd party service like Karat has more trust with an employer than their own employees in terms of what is needed for that specific employee's role within their own company then that is a sign of poor management and practices.