5 ms·

I don't know. In a world of sucky interviews, wasting a candidate's time on purpose, because they mistook you with an HR (statistically, that's a much more prob

I don't know. In a world of sucky interviews, wasting a candidate's time on purpose, because they mistook you with an HR (statistically, that's a much more probable occurrence) is as unethical as it gets short of plain lying in the interview result sheet. I can only hope that her not-that-productive-in-interviewing colleagues don't do such shit.

tptacek 14y ago
If she'd just stopped the interview, some other HN commenter would be writing an angry post about how that was unfair, too.
- xentronium 14y ago
  Not being able to just stop the interview must be a US thing. I'd take blunt response over sadistic 'derpy' torture any time.
  - btilly 14y ago
    There are two reasons for not just stopping the interview. One is the corporate image that the company tries to project. The other is that upset interviewees in the US occasionally develop theories about why they might have been discriminated against. And their mis-memories about what was said can figure into that. No matter how far off base, the lawsuits are expensive, and the truth does not always win you the case. Therefore every competent HR person and anyone with experience in this part of the law will tell you that you never give anything away about why someone failed the interview.
- jerrya 14y ago
  "Oh, this is (candidate), but let me save us some time. I thought this was going to be a technical interview." That guy bombed the interview right then and there. I didn't tell him that, though. I let him dig the deepest hole he could imagine by doing my best ditzy/derpy voice and just saying things like "they want me to ask about the load... average...?". He'd make up some garbage, and I'd log all of it. This way I could bury him both for being a sexist bastard and for being a lying piece of trash at the same time. He has already sunk the interview in her eyes, but she doesn't want to tell her employer that this guy bombed due to his interactions in the first 30 seconds with her. Moreover, he is a sexist bastard. He then tells her something she disagrees technically about load average, and this makes him a lying piece of trash. Regardless, he has bombed and sunk the interview, and her only duty now is to spend another 44:30 seconds to bury him. Of course, she is playing this for humor, so I am out of line for thinking Rachel sounds like a jackass who has done a disservice to the candidate as well as a disservice to her employer.
  - vacri 14y ago
    So the sexist guy has an incorrect opinion on women in tech. He encounters one, who decides to play along with his stereotype rather than just be who she is. While it's not her responsibility to teach him not to be sexist, it's also specifically avoiding allowing him to see a positive role model. And all out of a vindictive power play. If he has 'already lost the interview', then there is no point in keeping up with the charade - you've already made your evaluation and now you're just being a cat playing with a mouse. And at the end of the interview, we are left with a sexist man who has had his preconceived notions confirmed by encountering a female tech. That's something of an own-goal.
    - chris_wot 14y ago
      Wow, so Rachel encounters a sexist jerk, and then asks him a number of questions to let him hang himself, and it is Rachel who is the problem? Given they have very few women interviewers, and the guy has to work in a team, any woman who has the unfortunate luck to work in the jerk's team is going to have their life made difficult. Rachel seems to have done a service to the company by flunking him, IMHO.
      - vacri 14y ago
        That's a good strawman fallacy you've got going there. It's pretty clear that I think the main problem is the sexist man. Rachel didn't 'ask him a number of questions', she purposefully played the role of a ditzy, clueless airhead to play to his stereotypes rather than just ask the questions straight. Sure, it might feel good at the time and we can all laugh at the guy, ha ha, but what actually happened was the guy got reinforcement for his shitty behaviour. If the guy was giving weak answers, then being a straight interviewer isn't going to suddenly make him Einstein.
        chris_wot 14y ago
        He might have gotten reinforced for his bad behaviour, but he still didn't get the job. To my mind, serves him right.
arthurdenture 14y ago
> statistically, that's a much more probable occurrence Irrelevant even if it's true. If you're going to make that sort of assumption about people, knowing nothing more than their gender, I don't want to hire you.
- xentronium 14y ago
  Again, my point is not that the candidate doesn't pass, but that everyone's time is wasted. Just end the interview. I don't know why it should become a torture instead. Knowing why similar episodes happen in first place also helps. Some people are socially awkward. Some people are tired of and irritated by numerous phone screens without followups. Some people come from another culture. Some people are genuine assholes, though, no doubt about that. Still, I am surprised that such a tenured interviewer doesn't know that much about interviewees.
btilly 14y ago
I know the process involved here. The reason why he knew to say that this was supposed to be the technical interview is that he was told he would be getting a technical interview. Therefore, statistically, he should expect that he's getting a technical interview no matter who he hears. Secondly, even if you don't like your interviewer, if you're asked technical questions in a phone interview, it is just common sense to give the best answers you can. If you're competent, before long you'll realize that the person at the other end actually does understand what they are talking about. In this case I fully agree with her judgement and decision. The fact that the interviewee failed to realize that he was getting a technical interview when told he would get one says that he was incompetent. The fact that he was then unable to answer the technical questions he was asked them says that she discovered ample cause to fail him. (No surprise - most interviewees will fail the interview process.)

tptacek 14y ago

If she'd just stopped the interview, some other HN commenter would be writing an angry post about how that was unfair, too.

xentronium 14y ago
Not being able to just stop the interview must be a US thing. I'd take blunt response over sadistic 'derpy' torture any time.
- btilly 14y ago
  There are two reasons for not just stopping the interview. One is the corporate image that the company tries to project. The other is that upset interviewees in the US occasionally develop theories about why they might have been discriminated against. And their mis-memories about what was said can figure into that. No matter how far off base, the lawsuits are expensive, and the truth does not always win you the case. Therefore every competent HR person and anyone with experience in this part of the law will tell you that you never give anything away about why someone failed the interview.
jerrya 14y ago
"Oh, this is (candidate), but let me save us some time. I thought this was going to be a technical interview." That guy bombed the interview right then and there. I didn't tell him that, though. I let him dig the deepest hole he could imagine by doing my best ditzy/derpy voice and just saying things like "they want me to ask about the load... average...?". He'd make up some garbage, and I'd log all of it. This way I could bury him both for being a sexist bastard and for being a lying piece of trash at the same time. He has already sunk the interview in her eyes, but she doesn't want to tell her employer that this guy bombed due to his interactions in the first 30 seconds with her. Moreover, he is a sexist bastard. He then tells her something she disagrees technically about load average, and this makes him a lying piece of trash. Regardless, he has bombed and sunk the interview, and her only duty now is to spend another 44:30 seconds to bury him. Of course, she is playing this for humor, so I am out of line for thinking Rachel sounds like a jackass who has done a disservice to the candidate as well as a disservice to her employer.
- vacri 14y ago
  So the sexist guy has an incorrect opinion on women in tech. He encounters one, who decides to play along with his stereotype rather than just be who she is. While it's not her responsibility to teach him not to be sexist, it's also specifically avoiding allowing him to see a positive role model. And all out of a vindictive power play. If he has 'already lost the interview', then there is no point in keeping up with the charade - you've already made your evaluation and now you're just being a cat playing with a mouse. And at the end of the interview, we are left with a sexist man who has had his preconceived notions confirmed by encountering a female tech. That's something of an own-goal.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    Wow, so Rachel encounters a sexist jerk, and then asks him a number of questions to let him hang himself, and it is Rachel who is the problem? Given they have very few women interviewers, and the guy has to work in a team, any woman who has the unfortunate luck to work in the jerk's team is going to have their life made difficult. Rachel seems to have done a service to the company by flunking him, IMHO.
    - vacri 14y ago
      That's a good strawman fallacy you've got going there. It's pretty clear that I think the main problem is the sexist man. Rachel didn't 'ask him a number of questions', she purposefully played the role of a ditzy, clueless airhead to play to his stereotypes rather than just ask the questions straight. Sure, it might feel good at the time and we can all laugh at the guy, ha ha, but what actually happened was the guy got reinforcement for his shitty behaviour. If the guy was giving weak answers, then being a straight interviewer isn't going to suddenly make him Einstein.
      - chris_wot 14y ago
        He might have gotten reinforced for his bad behaviour, but he still didn't get the job. To my mind, serves him right.

arthurdenture 14y ago

> statistically, that's a much more probable occurrence Irrelevant even if it's true. If you're going to make that sort of assumption about people, knowing nothing more than their gender, I don't want to hire you.

xentronium 14y ago
Again, my point is not that the candidate doesn't pass, but that everyone's time is wasted. Just end the interview. I don't know why it should become a torture instead. Knowing why similar episodes happen in first place also helps. Some people are socially awkward. Some people are tired of and irritated by numerous phone screens without followups. Some people come from another culture. Some people are genuine assholes, though, no doubt about that. Still, I am surprised that such a tenured interviewer doesn't know that much about interviewees.

btilly 14y ago

I know the process involved here. The reason why he knew to say that this was supposed to be the technical interview is that he was told he would be getting a technical interview. Therefore, statistically, he should expect that he's getting a technical interview no matter who he hears. Secondly, even if you don't like your interviewer, if you're asked technical questions in a phone interview, it is just common sense to give the best answers you can. If you're competent, before long you'll realize that the person at the other end actually does understand what they are talking about. In this case I fully agree with her judgement and decision. The fact that the interviewee failed to realize that he was getting a technical interview when told he would get one says that he was incompetent. The fact that he was then unable to answer the technical questions he was asked them says that she discovered ample cause to fail him. (No surprise - most interviewees will fail the interview process.)