3 ms·

> After performing over 100 interviews, I can say that interviewing is thoroughly broken. I also have no idea how to actually make it better. I resonate with t

> After performing over 100 interviews, I can say that interviewing is thoroughly broken. I also have no idea how to actually make it better. I resonate with this greatly. I'm in the middle of applying for jobs, and I try to put myself into the recruiter's shoes. At the end of the day, I don't blame recruiters for the calls they make (e.g. ghosting, denying for $REASON). When you are supposed to interview a potential software dev, how are you going to differentiate the people you should invest into from the ChatGPT extension? How do you know whether the person actually worked at $FAANG_COMPANY for 3 years? Don't forget the other 78 people that also applied for the job.

mdaniel 2y ago
> I don't blame recruiters for the calls they make (e.g. ghosting, False. This is not Tinder: if you don't want to move forward, an email stating as much is super cheap.
- EGreg 2y ago
  Tell me, why is it OK for Tinder?
  - stonogo 2y ago
    Because it's the basis of the product. You swipe and move on. Professional interactions are and ought to be different.
    - EGreg 2y ago
      Why ought they be different? ATS scans resumes and discards most of them. The whole thing has become just another dark forest
      - stonogo 2y ago
        Parent comment was specifically commenting about recruiters, indicating there was human communication at some point, hence the term 'ghosting'. Anyway it's much the same, since most competent HR software can autosend a 'no thanks' email when the system bulk-rejects applications. Whether or not a person is involved, it's so little effort to send that close-of-conversation email that there's no reason not to. Meanwhile, the point of Tinder is that people choose when and how to engage. They're not the same.
        randomdata 2y ago
        And the comparison with Tinder also carried the implication that the successful swiping had already taken place that there was human-to-human communication that was happening, but where one party decided to no longer engage. There may be essentially no effort to say that you are no longer interested, but at the same time if you are no longer interested, who cares?
  - BobaFloutist 2y ago
    It's not necessarily, but interpersonal bad behavior reflects on your self, professional bad behavior reflects on your institution. The stakes are also higher. Yes, love is more important than money, but having a job at all is definitely lower on Maslow's hierarchy than finding a romantic partnership.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      > but interpersonal bad behavior reflects on your self, professional bad behavior reflects on your institution. Perhaps, but their self or their institution don't want you, so why would they be concerned with what you think of them? In the olden days where you only had the choice of the 20 people you could realistically get in touch with by horse, there was always an inkling in the back your mind that maybe you'll get desperate in the future, so there would be a lot of fear around completely destroying ties. But now that there are 8 billion people at your immediate disposal, there is no reason to cling to something you clearly don't want. In fact, if their actions give you a sour taste, that's ideal! It will save them from thinking you are a good idea later when they have a desperate moment. If their niceties leaves you still willing to engage even after they realized you're not a good option, that's not a good place for anyone.
knallfrosch 2y ago
> How do you know whether the person actually worked at $FAANG_COMPANY for 3 years? In the United States of America, you call the company. In Germany, employees get a certificate. If you get 100 applications for an opening, your HR tool can automatically send emails to declined candidates. You do track which ones you’ve rejected in the past and which ones you go forward with, right? And on and on. It’s not hard.

mdaniel 2y ago

> I don't blame recruiters for the calls they make (e.g. ghosting, False. This is not Tinder: if you don't want to move forward, an email stating as much is super cheap.

EGreg 2y ago
Tell me, why is it OK for Tinder?
- stonogo 2y ago
  Because it's the basis of the product. You swipe and move on. Professional interactions are and ought to be different.
  - EGreg 2y ago
    Why ought they be different? ATS scans resumes and discards most of them. The whole thing has become just another dark forest
    - stonogo 2y ago
      Parent comment was specifically commenting about recruiters, indicating there was human communication at some point, hence the term 'ghosting'. Anyway it's much the same, since most competent HR software can autosend a 'no thanks' email when the system bulk-rejects applications. Whether or not a person is involved, it's so little effort to send that close-of-conversation email that there's no reason not to. Meanwhile, the point of Tinder is that people choose when and how to engage. They're not the same.
      - randomdata 2y ago
        And the comparison with Tinder also carried the implication that the successful swiping had already taken place that there was human-to-human communication that was happening, but where one party decided to no longer engage. There may be essentially no effort to say that you are no longer interested, but at the same time if you are no longer interested, who cares?
- BobaFloutist 2y ago
  It's not necessarily, but interpersonal bad behavior reflects on your self, professional bad behavior reflects on your institution. The stakes are also higher. Yes, love is more important than money, but having a job at all is definitely lower on Maslow's hierarchy than finding a romantic partnership.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > but interpersonal bad behavior reflects on your self, professional bad behavior reflects on your institution. Perhaps, but their self or their institution don't want you, so why would they be concerned with what you think of them? In the olden days where you only had the choice of the 20 people you could realistically get in touch with by horse, there was always an inkling in the back your mind that maybe you'll get desperate in the future, so there would be a lot of fear around completely destroying ties. But now that there are 8 billion people at your immediate disposal, there is no reason to cling to something you clearly don't want. In fact, if their actions give you a sour taste, that's ideal! It will save them from thinking you are a good idea later when they have a desperate moment. If their niceties leaves you still willing to engage even after they realized you're not a good option, that's not a good place for anyone.

knallfrosch 2y ago

> How do you know whether the person actually worked at $FAANG_COMPANY for 3 years? In the United States of America, you call the company. In Germany, employees get a certificate. If you get 100 applications for an opening, your HR tool can automatically send emails to declined candidates. You do track which ones you’ve rejected in the past and which ones you go forward with, right? And on and on. It’s not hard.