6 ms·

> when they describe the process it adds up to around 4-5 hours total 4-5 hours is pretty excessive for an interview process actually. A candidate cannot be d

> when they describe the process it adds up to around 4-5 hours total 4-5 hours is pretty excessive for an interview process actually. A candidate cannot be doing 4-5 hours for an interview process just to hear a no at the end. Successful job hunts need to have many irons in the fire at once and if each one is taking 4-5 hours there's only so much you can realistically take on I know that interview processes generally aren't designed to make things easier on candidates but they probably should be if you want good candidates

Beijinger 2y ago
"4-5 hours is pretty excessive for an interview process actually." I have been asked for basically two weeks of work. I don't think it is unreasonable. You just have to ask "10k okay?"
darkerside 2y ago
That's a time investment for a serious consideration, and I don't think it's unreasonable at all. Nobody is making you spend that time, but if you choose not to, understand that plenty of qualified people will happily do so and get the job.
- tomduncalf 2y ago
  Exactly, and you can also look at the interview as time for you to vibe check the company. Even in a purely coding interview, I find there’s a noticeable difference in demeanour between interviewers who will probably be empathetic and good people to work with, and people who won’t. And if most of the interviewers fail that vibe check, the job probably wasn’t right for you. I can see how lengthy interview processes are annoying if you’re applying for loads of jobs, but honestly 4-5 hours doesn’t seem unreasonable and I’d actually be a bit concerned about any company that was willing to hire me with substantially less time to see if I was a good fit.
- ipaddr 2y ago
  If there are plenty of qualified candidates there must be an over supply of candidates in the market. Too many developers but not enough roles.
ozim 2y ago
No one does 4-5 hours in one go for me it would be impossible to interview 3-5 candidates that way. It is more like 1 hour a week in 2-3 weeks and then 1-2 hours for take home. After each step you can get a no - but you definitely get yes/no answer in those 3 weeks from me and I try to say no as soon as possible not to waste people time.
- ipaddr 2y ago
  I can figure out in 5 minutes how someone is going to do. Just based on the resume alone in most cases. What do you do with the remaining 4 hours and 55 minutes? The take home test tells me little. I don't know who did the work, how long it took. I know they must really need the work because they gave away 2 hours of free work, that might be a red flag. If they guessed the coding standards we use then we pass them? If you care about seeing their code ask them for a sample. Some people people github profiles with code on their resume. Use some of the time you have: the 4 hours 55 minutes and check yourself. It will be more representative of their work.
  - krat0sprakhar 2y ago
    > I can figure out in 5 minutes how someone is going to do. Just based on the resume alone in most cases. Just on resume? Are you aware how easy and common it is for candidates to lie on the resume? > If you care about seeing their code ask them for a sample. Same as above. Most candidates can't share code sample from their current/previous employer. For open source projects, it is again very easy to fake authorship.
    - SoftTalker 2y ago
      > Are you aware how easy and common it is for candidates to lie on the resume? Ask them a few probing questions about some of the technology and experiences listed. It's not too hard to pierce a veneer of bullshit. And does anyone check references anymore?
    - bluefirebrand 2y ago
      > Just on resume? Are you aware how easy and common it is for candidates to lie on the resume? If you can't figure out a candidate lied on their resume in a half hour conversation, you aren't going to figure it out in a four hour conversation either
morgante 2y ago
> 4-5 hours is pretty excessive for an interview process actually. That's preposterous. You're going to spend hundreds of hours working together. 4-5 hours is extremely reasonable to make sure it's a good mutual fit. Of course, it shouldn't be 4-5 hours for all candidates. The last hour spent should have a pretty high conversion rate to offer. But 4-5 hours for hired candidates is completely standard. > A candidate cannot be doing 4-5 hours for an interview process just to hear a no at the end. Successful job hunts need to have many irons in the fire at once and if each one is taking 4-5 hours there's only so much you can realistically take on This is a toxic attitude. If you "spray and pray" then refuse any actual interview processes then you're never going to get a great job. Every job I've gotten came from identifying a dozen or so opportunities up front and going deep on them.
- tomrod 2y ago
  What is the marginal value of the fourth or fifth deep hour that you wouldn't grok by hour 3.5?
  - michaelt 2y ago
    30 mins chat with a recruiter who'll try to suss out whether they can afford you, make sure you're actually interested, and check you've got the right to work in the country. 1 hour hiring manager interview the first person who actually understands those acronyms on your CV 1.5 hour technical/coding interview, to check you know how to program 1 hour behavioural interview to check if you've ever gotten into a fistfight about database schema design 1 hour chat with your boss's boss's boss, who feels he ought to have a conversation with someone before approving a six-figure paycheck. This lengthy and bureaucratic process is vital to ensuring prospective hires have the patience needed to get through all the other lengthy and bureaucratic processes their job will entail.
    - tomrod 2y ago
      I appreciate your comment as its intended defense and understand why a committee approach is a CYA risk-assessment measure (which ultimately turns job placement into a popularity contest as technical ability and team desiredata take a back seat/lower weight to fisticuffs assessments by HR). However, parent commentator mentioned wanting to _go deep_, and needed 4-5 hours to do it, indicating that the typical committee pattern is out of alignment with what they were advocating. Further, your time assessments are too long. You can assess fisticuffs in 10 minutes along with a background check. Technical doesn't have to be 1.5 hours. Also, 90 day probation policies exist to address as well.
Aurornis 2y ago
> 4-5 hours is pretty excessive for an interview process actually. > A candidate cannot be doing 4-5 hours for an interview process just to hear a no at the end. Successful job hunts need to have many irons in the fire at once and if each one is taking 4-5 hours there's only so much you can realistically take on You misunderstood. 4-5 hours is for the entire process inclusive of all steps. Not a single 4-5 hour session. Companies generally don’t allocate a lot of time up front to every candidate. They have stages starting with a screen and moving up from there.
cmrdporcupine 2y ago
Honestly, I will happily do a 4-5 hours interview but I will only do it once it's clear there's a 90% chance of a fit. In which case, I often actually enjoy it because it's a chance to get to know future coworkers and the working environment and just make sure I'm not jumping from a frying pan into a fire, etc. But I also on the whole refuse interviews that are "leetcode" type situations and my nightmare would be 4-5 hours of some arrogant person 15 years younger than me trying to trip me up on "skill testing" trickery. But sitting and talking for a few hours and meeting a bunch of people or analyzing a codebase together, or talking about a CS paper they've given me in advance to read? I think that's normal. But, again, that's only if we've done the first round or two and it's clear there's likely going to be some movement, and we're just doing our final due diligence to make sure both parties think it's a fit.
commandlinefan 2y ago
> 4-5 hours for an interview process just to hear a no I once did a full-day interview and was asked back to do _another_ full-day interview... to be turned down after that.

Beijinger 2y ago

"4-5 hours is pretty excessive for an interview process actually." I have been asked for basically two weeks of work. I don't think it is unreasonable. You just have to ask "10k okay?"

darkerside 2y ago

That's a time investment for a serious consideration, and I don't think it's unreasonable at all. Nobody is making you spend that time, but if you choose not to, understand that plenty of qualified people will happily do so and get the job.

tomduncalf 2y ago
Exactly, and you can also look at the interview as time for you to vibe check the company. Even in a purely coding interview, I find there’s a noticeable difference in demeanour between interviewers who will probably be empathetic and good people to work with, and people who won’t. And if most of the interviewers fail that vibe check, the job probably wasn’t right for you. I can see how lengthy interview processes are annoying if you’re applying for loads of jobs, but honestly 4-5 hours doesn’t seem unreasonable and I’d actually be a bit concerned about any company that was willing to hire me with substantially less time to see if I was a good fit.
ipaddr 2y ago
If there are plenty of qualified candidates there must be an over supply of candidates in the market. Too many developers but not enough roles.

ozim 2y ago

No one does 4-5 hours in one go for me it would be impossible to interview 3-5 candidates that way. It is more like 1 hour a week in 2-3 weeks and then 1-2 hours for take home. After each step you can get a no - but you definitely get yes/no answer in those 3 weeks from me and I try to say no as soon as possible not to waste people time.

ipaddr 2y ago
I can figure out in 5 minutes how someone is going to do. Just based on the resume alone in most cases. What do you do with the remaining 4 hours and 55 minutes? The take home test tells me little. I don't know who did the work, how long it took. I know they must really need the work because they gave away 2 hours of free work, that might be a red flag. If they guessed the coding standards we use then we pass them? If you care about seeing their code ask them for a sample. Some people people github profiles with code on their resume. Use some of the time you have: the 4 hours 55 minutes and check yourself. It will be more representative of their work.
- krat0sprakhar 2y ago
  > I can figure out in 5 minutes how someone is going to do. Just based on the resume alone in most cases. Just on resume? Are you aware how easy and common it is for candidates to lie on the resume? > If you care about seeing their code ask them for a sample. Same as above. Most candidates can't share code sample from their current/previous employer. For open source projects, it is again very easy to fake authorship.
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    > Are you aware how easy and common it is for candidates to lie on the resume? Ask them a few probing questions about some of the technology and experiences listed. It's not too hard to pierce a veneer of bullshit. And does anyone check references anymore?
  - bluefirebrand 2y ago
    > Just on resume? Are you aware how easy and common it is for candidates to lie on the resume? If you can't figure out a candidate lied on their resume in a half hour conversation, you aren't going to figure it out in a four hour conversation either

morgante 2y ago

> 4-5 hours is pretty excessive for an interview process actually. That's preposterous. You're going to spend hundreds of hours working together. 4-5 hours is extremely reasonable to make sure it's a good mutual fit. Of course, it shouldn't be 4-5 hours for all candidates. The last hour spent should have a pretty high conversion rate to offer. But 4-5 hours for hired candidates is completely standard. > A candidate cannot be doing 4-5 hours for an interview process just to hear a no at the end. Successful job hunts need to have many irons in the fire at once and if each one is taking 4-5 hours there's only so much you can realistically take on This is a toxic attitude. If you "spray and pray" then refuse any actual interview processes then you're never going to get a great job. Every job I've gotten came from identifying a dozen or so opportunities up front and going deep on them.

tomrod 2y ago
What is the marginal value of the fourth or fifth deep hour that you wouldn't grok by hour 3.5?
- michaelt 2y ago
  30 mins chat with a recruiter who'll try to suss out whether they can afford you, make sure you're actually interested, and check you've got the right to work in the country. 1 hour hiring manager interview the first person who actually understands those acronyms on your CV 1.5 hour technical/coding interview, to check you know how to program 1 hour behavioural interview to check if you've ever gotten into a fistfight about database schema design 1 hour chat with your boss's boss's boss, who feels he ought to have a conversation with someone before approving a six-figure paycheck. This lengthy and bureaucratic process is vital to ensuring prospective hires have the patience needed to get through all the other lengthy and bureaucratic processes their job will entail.
  - tomrod 2y ago
    I appreciate your comment as its intended defense and understand why a committee approach is a CYA risk-assessment measure (which ultimately turns job placement into a popularity contest as technical ability and team desiredata take a back seat/lower weight to fisticuffs assessments by HR). However, parent commentator mentioned wanting to _go deep_, and needed 4-5 hours to do it, indicating that the typical committee pattern is out of alignment with what they were advocating. Further, your time assessments are too long. You can assess fisticuffs in 10 minutes along with a background check. Technical doesn't have to be 1.5 hours. Also, 90 day probation policies exist to address as well.

Aurornis 2y ago

> 4-5 hours is pretty excessive for an interview process actually. > A candidate cannot be doing 4-5 hours for an interview process just to hear a no at the end. Successful job hunts need to have many irons in the fire at once and if each one is taking 4-5 hours there's only so much you can realistically take on You misunderstood. 4-5 hours is for the entire process inclusive of all steps. Not a single 4-5 hour session. Companies generally don’t allocate a lot of time up front to every candidate. They have stages starting with a screen and moving up from there.

cmrdporcupine 2y ago

Honestly, I will happily do a 4-5 hours interview but I will only do it once it's clear there's a 90% chance of a fit. In which case, I often actually enjoy it because it's a chance to get to know future coworkers and the working environment and just make sure I'm not jumping from a frying pan into a fire, etc. But I also on the whole refuse interviews that are "leetcode" type situations and my nightmare would be 4-5 hours of some arrogant person 15 years younger than me trying to trip me up on "skill testing" trickery. But sitting and talking for a few hours and meeting a bunch of people or analyzing a codebase together, or talking about a CS paper they've given me in advance to read? I think that's normal. But, again, that's only if we've done the first round or two and it's clear there's likely going to be some movement, and we're just doing our final due diligence to make sure both parties think it's a fit.

commandlinefan 2y ago

> 4-5 hours for an interview process just to hear a no I once did a full-day interview and was asked back to do _another_ full-day interview... to be turned down after that.