3 ms·

I’d love for you to elaborate :) But along that thought, I’ve always held that a human conversation is the best filter. I’ll ask you what do you work on recent

I’d love for you to elaborate :) But along that thought, I’ve always held that a human conversation is the best filter. I’ll ask you what do you work on recently, what did you learn, what did you mess up, what did you hate about the tool / language / framework. I strongly believe your ability to articulate your situation corresponds with your ability to do the job.

eska 10mo ago
There are quite a few people who can code but have 0 social skills and can’t talk well or at all. In that sense I have to disagree with you, but I still wouldn’t hire them because they drag teams down.
- sam_lowry_ 10mo ago
  These days there are more people in the industry that have great social skills, memorize leetcode but have 0 ability to patiently sit down and do meaningful work. They don't just drag teams down, they destroy once great companies.
CharlieDigital 10mo ago
Take your current technical assessment and think about the types of responses or code submissions that really impressed you. What was special about them? What did you see in the response that drew a positive reaction from your team? Can you re-frame your process or the prompt to only elicit those specific responses? So instead of a whole exercise of building a React app or a whole backend API, for example, what would really "wow" you if you saw the candidate do it in the submission for a project? Could you re-frame your whole process so you only target those specific responses and elicit specific outputs? Now that you've taken what was previously a 2 hour coding exercise (for example) and distilled down to 3-4 key questions, you can seek the same outputs in 15-30 minutes instead. There are several advantages to this: 1) Many times, candidates know the answer but they actually can't figure out what you're looking for when there's a lot of cruft around the question/problem being solved. You can end up losing candidates that know how to solve the problem the way you want, but because of the way the question was posed, the objective is opaque. 2) It saves a lot of time for both sides. Interviewer doesn't have to review a big submission, candidate doesn't have to waste time doing a long project. 3) By condensing the cycle, you can evaluate more candidates and you can hopefully select a top candidate before they get another opportunity. You shorten the cycle time because the candidate doesn't have to find free time to do a project or sit down for long interviews, you don't need to have people review the code submissions, etc.

eska 10mo ago

There are quite a few people who can code but have 0 social skills and can’t talk well or at all. In that sense I have to disagree with you, but I still wouldn’t hire them because they drag teams down.

sam_lowry_ 10mo ago
These days there are more people in the industry that have great social skills, memorize leetcode but have 0 ability to patiently sit down and do meaningful work. They don't just drag teams down, they destroy once great companies.

CharlieDigital 10mo ago

Take your current technical assessment and think about the types of responses or code submissions that really impressed you. What was special about them? What did you see in the response that drew a positive reaction from your team? Can you re-frame your process or the prompt to only elicit those specific responses? So instead of a whole exercise of building a React app or a whole backend API, for example, what would really "wow" you if you saw the candidate do it in the submission for a project? Could you re-frame your whole process so you only target those specific responses and elicit specific outputs? Now that you've taken what was previously a 2 hour coding exercise (for example) and distilled down to 3-4 key questions, you can seek the same outputs in 15-30 minutes instead. There are several advantages to this: 1) Many times, candidates know the answer but they actually can't figure out what you're looking for when there's a lot of cruft around the question/problem being solved. You can end up losing candidates that know how to solve the problem the way you want, but because of the way the question was posed, the objective is opaque. 2) It saves a lot of time for both sides. Interviewer doesn't have to review a big submission, candidate doesn't have to waste time doing a long project. 3) By condensing the cycle, you can evaluate more candidates and you can hopefully select a top candidate before they get another opportunity. You shorten the cycle time because the candidate doesn't have to find free time to do a project or sit down for long interviews, you don't need to have people review the code submissions, etc.