4 ms·

Ah, to have unlimited time and or options. "Screen the company" is pretty sad advice for most people who have no choices. I must have misunderstood your point.

WorldMaker 3y ago
It's always a two-way process whether we like it or not. Some of the companies I've hit time limits on or got ghosted in feedback processes after a greatly asymmetric amount of labor in interview processes (I've never yet met a company putting a commensurate amount of labor into their interview responses than what they've asked for from candidates) could greatly use my skills. They aren't actually interviewing for my skills. I can't help but see that as a failure on their part. Not because I'm particularly great (I've got plenty of imposter syndrome to deal with, sorry), but because their interviews are particularly shit and they are absolutely saying in their choices of interview that they aren't hiring for skilled labor, they are hiring for bottom of the barrel, quick/dirty/disgusting talent and they don't care who knows it. Technical interviews aren't about finding skills, they are about finding people with too much labor on their hands skilled or not. They are about finding people willing to do bad solutions quickly just to pass a test, not about if they have any actual skills at writing good production code. We don't have a standardized test for "good production code" so we keep using a bunch of terrible half-assed semi-problems to approximate it, then adding timers on top because arbitrary deadlines are the only thing we know as an industry for how to get work "done". We aren't testing for what we actually want and we don't know how (and we can't afford to actually pay for the labor involved so that the answers aren't just half-assed AI solutions), so let's keep testing half-assed shit and maybe we'll get "good" candidates, maybe.~
- EchoChamberMan 3y ago
  I think the tests select exactly what the c suite wants - people with credentials. The more, and fancier, the better. Some of the bias is conscious, but most probably isn't.

WorldMaker 3y ago

It's always a two-way process whether we like it or not. Some of the companies I've hit time limits on or got ghosted in feedback processes after a greatly asymmetric amount of labor in interview processes (I've never yet met a company putting a commensurate amount of labor into their interview responses than what they've asked for from candidates) could greatly use my skills. They aren't actually interviewing for my skills. I can't help but see that as a failure on their part. Not because I'm particularly great (I've got plenty of imposter syndrome to deal with, sorry), but because their interviews are particularly shit and they are absolutely saying in their choices of interview that they aren't hiring for skilled labor, they are hiring for bottom of the barrel, quick/dirty/disgusting talent and they don't care who knows it. Technical interviews aren't about finding skills, they are about finding people with too much labor on their hands skilled or not. They are about finding people willing to do bad solutions quickly just to pass a test, not about if they have any actual skills at writing good production code. We don't have a standardized test for "good production code" so we keep using a bunch of terrible half-assed semi-problems to approximate it, then adding timers on top because arbitrary deadlines are the only thing we know as an industry for how to get work "done". We aren't testing for what we actually want and we don't know how (and we can't afford to actually pay for the labor involved so that the answers aren't just half-assed AI solutions), so let's keep testing half-assed shit and maybe we'll get "good" candidates, maybe.~

EchoChamberMan 3y ago
I think the tests select exactly what the c suite wants - people with credentials. The more, and fancier, the better. Some of the bias is conscious, but most probably isn't.