2 ms·

Interviews are indeed broken and largely pointless. For so many reasons, interviews often have no real relationship to the work or skills required. It's no su

Interviews are indeed broken and largely pointless. For so many reasons, interviews often have no real relationship to the work or skills required. It's no surprise that interview cheaters can still be successful at roles. Of course it's also possible that they aren't really accomplishing much at work due to any other number of company failures. I refuse to do rounds of interviews any more. I will have the initial recruiter call and then one solo or team online call to talk, but no tests and no projects. I've burned far too many hours on this in the past; and when I get the role, I walk in and find they actually need about 1/10th of my skills and mental capacity. Put the candidate on a 1-month trial contract. If that goes well, then extend the contract or convert it to employment.

starky 3y ago
Agreed that interviewing is largely broken and pointless. Often due to companies trying to standardize their process. I once went to interview at a company where a few former colleagues work and they had standardized their interview process. I was really put out as a lot of the interview was answering questions that they already knew my skill level in and even acknowledging it. The situation where the job you accept is below your skill set may be a failing on your side of the interview process. When interviewing I'm as concerned about finding out what I can about the job and what it entails as I am about making a good impression to the interviewer. I'm not going to accept a job where I'm not confident that I'm going to enjoy it. On the other side of the table I'm constantly surprised at how few candidates actually take an interest in what they are going to be doing, even when given very explicit opportunities to engage in that way. I don't want to hire someone that is going to turn around and leave because it wasn't what they expected.

starky 3y ago

Agreed that interviewing is largely broken and pointless. Often due to companies trying to standardize their process. I once went to interview at a company where a few former colleagues work and they had standardized their interview process. I was really put out as a lot of the interview was answering questions that they already knew my skill level in and even acknowledging it. The situation where the job you accept is below your skill set may be a failing on your side of the interview process. When interviewing I'm as concerned about finding out what I can about the job and what it entails as I am about making a good impression to the interviewer. I'm not going to accept a job where I'm not confident that I'm going to enjoy it. On the other side of the table I'm constantly surprised at how few candidates actually take an interest in what they are going to be doing, even when given very explicit opportunities to engage in that way. I don't want to hire someone that is going to turn around and leave because it wasn't what they expected.