3 ms·

"Unqualified" by what standard? What makes you think your standards are appropriate for the positions you're offering? And what makes you think your salaries ar

"Unqualified" by what standard? What makes you think your standards are appropriate for the positions you're offering? And what makes you think your salaries are "very generous?" Lot's of companies think their salary/benefits packages are "very generous" when they're anything but. Without context your post is a giant meaningless assertion. Software developers aren't (typically) stupid. They have a reasonable idea of the value they provide the company. My estimation is that almost every company under-compensates their engineering staff. I doubt yours is an exception.

enraged_camel 13y ago
>>"Unqualified" by what standard? What makes you think your standards are appropriate for the positions you're offering? Because we do very rigorous analysis of why successful employees are actually successful. We know what it takes to perform well at each job function. >>And what makes you think your salaries are "very generous?" Lot's of companies think their salary/benefits packages are "very generous" when they're anything but. Without context your post is a giant meaningless assertion. Lots of websites aggregate salaries by position and geographic region, so we know the numbers. We also have very good benefits. For instance, our 401k program is a dollar-for-dollar match up to 15% of salary, which is extremely rare.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
tbrownaw 13y ago
What I've seen is supposedly-experienced programmers who can't write FizzBuzz, or claim database experience but don't know why a cross-join is bad or what it is, or who claim to be experts at $TOOL but can only recite a handful of memorized answers and just pick whichever sounds closest to the question. Software developers (supposedly) aren't stupid. Applicants for software development positions on the other hand...
- randomdata 13y ago
  I'll admit, I had to look up what a cross join was, despite being quite familiar with the subject once I understood the terminology. I'm sure you apply much more rigour to your hiring process, but at the same time, it is difficult to know who is throwing out great candidates (I'm not suggesting I am one) over silly little things like this. How do we know if people are hard to find because people are actually hard to find, or people doing the hiring are terrible at their job?
  - tbrownaw 13y ago
    How do we know if people are hard to find because people are actually hard to find, or people doing the hiring are terrible at their job? Partly both, but also missing a qualified applicant often costs far less than making a bad hire. The ratio of decent hires to bad hires needs to be as high as possible. In comparison, the percentage of qualified applicants thrown out almost doesn't matter (unless it gets to something truly absurd like 90%). (Really it does matter, just not compared to making bad hires. Interviews and delays are still expensive, just less so than failing to get new employees up to speed.) Interviewers that make bad hires are terrible. Interviewers that turn away good hires are merely bad.

enraged_camel 13y ago

>>"Unqualified" by what standard? What makes you think your standards are appropriate for the positions you're offering? Because we do very rigorous analysis of why successful employees are actually successful. We know what it takes to perform well at each job function. >>And what makes you think your salaries are "very generous?" Lot's of companies think their salary/benefits packages are "very generous" when they're anything but. Without context your post is a giant meaningless assertion. Lots of websites aggregate salaries by position and geographic region, so we know the numbers. We also have very good benefits. For instance, our 401k program is a dollar-for-dollar match up to 15% of salary, which is extremely rare.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

tbrownaw 13y ago

What I've seen is supposedly-experienced programmers who can't write FizzBuzz, or claim database experience but don't know why a cross-join is bad or what it is, or who claim to be experts at $TOOL but can only recite a handful of memorized answers and just pick whichever sounds closest to the question. Software developers (supposedly) aren't stupid. Applicants for software development positions on the other hand...

randomdata 13y ago
I'll admit, I had to look up what a cross join was, despite being quite familiar with the subject once I understood the terminology. I'm sure you apply much more rigour to your hiring process, but at the same time, it is difficult to know who is throwing out great candidates (I'm not suggesting I am one) over silly little things like this. How do we know if people are hard to find because people are actually hard to find, or people doing the hiring are terrible at their job?
- tbrownaw 13y ago
  How do we know if people are hard to find because people are actually hard to find, or people doing the hiring are terrible at their job? Partly both, but also missing a qualified applicant often costs far less than making a bad hire. The ratio of decent hires to bad hires needs to be as high as possible. In comparison, the percentage of qualified applicants thrown out almost doesn't matter (unless it gets to something truly absurd like 90%). (Really it does matter, just not compared to making bad hires. Interviews and delays are still expensive, just less so than failing to get new employees up to speed.) Interviewers that make bad hires are terrible. Interviewers that turn away good hires are merely bad.