3 ms·

I haven't done that many interviews, so take this FWIW, but I'd be reluctant to be interviewed by a 3rd party. I'd have no way of getting a feel for company cul

I haven't done that many interviews, so take this FWIW, but I'd be reluctant to be interviewed by a 3rd party. I'd have no way of getting a feel for company culture, plus you probably wouldn't be able to answer MY questions about the company. If you're focusing on the tech only, it's still another layer that adds more time and money, plus if it's specialized enough they'd probably do an internal review of code samples anyway.

shail 13y ago
Valid points for sure. This is one of the downsides. But if you clear this round you are definitely going to talk to them. Its just that instead of answering those initial filtering questions to them, you would answer to me and I will convey that to them. But I see your point and its a good point to consider before considering my idea.
- potatolicious 13y ago
  Right, so the candidate has everything to lose and nothing to gain. The only beneficiary is the employer - which in the current supply/demand climate for engineers, makes the viability of this idea suspect.
  - shail 13y ago
    Yes, its a service offered to employers right now so beneficiary is the employer. But I do not completely agree that candidate is at a loss. If the candidate is good enough, he will meet the employer eventually.
    - potatolicious 13y ago
      > "But I do not completely agree that candidate is at a loss." How is the candidate not at a loss? Under the current system, a candidate can ask any number of questions about the company, their culture, their technology, and other things that are of extreme importance to the candidate in deciding which opportunities to pursue. Under your system, none of this can be meaningfully answered except the "brochure" facts that are trivial to discover anyways. Under the current system, a candidate immediately meets with a member of the company. Under your system, he/she will meet the employer "eventually". Everything about this system is a net negative compared to the status quo, for the candidate. In the current employment climate for (good) software engineers, where demand massively outstrips supply, I simply do not see a system that penalizes candidates going anywhere. I really hate whipping this card out, but the last two times I've been actively seeking a job I've had no less than a dozen companies respond positively within a single day. I would be severely disinclined to do anything through an intermediary. This goes double if I'm only passively looking. I'm not looking to jump ship, so I have zero desire to spin my wheels on opportunities without any information on whether this is interesting to me or not. The climate favors the candidate, not the employer, unless the employer is exceptional. IMO your idea can only be viable if it brings something to the table for both sides.
  - greenyoda 13y ago
    Agreed. If I were the job candidate, I'd be less than thrilled to find out that the company that was trying to recruit me was "too busy" to interview me themselves. With companies complaining about how hard it is to get qualified candidates, they shouldn't be adding extra layers of bureaucracy between the candidate and the company.

shail 13y ago

Valid points for sure. This is one of the downsides. But if you clear this round you are definitely going to talk to them. Its just that instead of answering those initial filtering questions to them, you would answer to me and I will convey that to them. But I see your point and its a good point to consider before considering my idea.

potatolicious 13y ago
Right, so the candidate has everything to lose and nothing to gain. The only beneficiary is the employer - which in the current supply/demand climate for engineers, makes the viability of this idea suspect.
- shail 13y ago
  Yes, its a service offered to employers right now so beneficiary is the employer. But I do not completely agree that candidate is at a loss. If the candidate is good enough, he will meet the employer eventually.
  - potatolicious 13y ago
    > "But I do not completely agree that candidate is at a loss." How is the candidate not at a loss? Under the current system, a candidate can ask any number of questions about the company, their culture, their technology, and other things that are of extreme importance to the candidate in deciding which opportunities to pursue. Under your system, none of this can be meaningfully answered except the "brochure" facts that are trivial to discover anyways. Under the current system, a candidate immediately meets with a member of the company. Under your system, he/she will meet the employer "eventually". Everything about this system is a net negative compared to the status quo, for the candidate. In the current employment climate for (good) software engineers, where demand massively outstrips supply, I simply do not see a system that penalizes candidates going anywhere. I really hate whipping this card out, but the last two times I've been actively seeking a job I've had no less than a dozen companies respond positively within a single day. I would be severely disinclined to do anything through an intermediary. This goes double if I'm only passively looking. I'm not looking to jump ship, so I have zero desire to spin my wheels on opportunities without any information on whether this is interesting to me or not. The climate favors the candidate, not the employer, unless the employer is exceptional. IMO your idea can only be viable if it brings something to the table for both sides.
- greenyoda 13y ago
  Agreed. If I were the job candidate, I'd be less than thrilled to find out that the company that was trying to recruit me was "too busy" to interview me themselves. With companies complaining about how hard it is to get qualified candidates, they shouldn't be adding extra layers of bureaucracy between the candidate and the company.