4 ms·

Fixing tech recruiting

• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• andrewstuart 13y ago
  """"to focus on candidate who will show stability – work for at least 4 years."""" how, exactly, does one "focus on a candidate who will show stability" and work for at least four years? how can a recruiter POSSIBLY determine this? Stupid suggestion. """to focus on candidate who will be better than average – since more money/equity the candidate earns, the more reward recruiter will get."""" recruiters, at least this recruiter, try to find the best people we can. Do you think that the more money we are offered, the 'better candidate we will find'? Stupid suggestion. """"to focus on candidate who is a better fit – since a better fit is most likely to show stability as well as stay for long term with the company."""" these words don't fit together into anything meaningful. Stupid. """"to track candidates who are good – since maintaining a long term (~10-20 years) with such candidates will be more fruitful.to focus on company whose equity will be meaningful – since a part of their compensation is in equity."""" we have received over 150,000 job applications over 8 years. you have no idea how hard it is to actually achieve perfection in "tracking great people". Those who don't understand think it's easy. Another stupid suggestion. So, if you think you can do better, get out there and start recruiting instead of being an yet another armchair general.
  • ashishb 13y ago
    Most of your attacks are straw man argument and are not even worth replying, as someone who has been on the receiving end of the system (as engineer), I was just trying to provide my two cents to improve the system which will help both engineers and recruiters.