5 ms·

Andreessen Horowitz is relatively cool

24 points by jqm 12y ago

A bit of background... I'm a self taught programmer who is not a start-up guy nor interested in the VC world. I write web apps for companies, manage some small databases and some servers. I know a bit about a lot of things but sometimes don't know exactly what I know and what I don't. So... a few weeks ago Andreessen Horowitz posted a programming test looking for applications. I took it but didn't submit a resume. When they contacted me telling me I wasn't what they were looking for (no surprise...I didn't send a resume) I asked to see how I did on the test. They actually emailed me back telling me how I did (it wasn't as well as I had hoped but was ok for me I suppose). Not only that they gave me specific areas I should improve on, as well as those I did well on. They certainly didn't have much to gain from responding. This is pretty cool behavior on the part of Andreesson Horowitz.

cessor 12y ago
Getting feedback on an application would be really valuable. My girlfriend got rejected by an acting college in London just last week - they didn't tell her why or how she could improve. She was really disappointed. Everytime I had an interview and was rejected I was told the reason why and got a suggestion where to improve. Some people actually told me to go look somewhere else and mentioned places, companies and people where I could offer my services instead. I value this kind of feedback in general, even though I have no idea who these Andreessen people are.
- loumf 12y ago
  It's rough because it opens the company up to lawsuits. It's easier for HR/Management to say "Don't give any feedback" than to give proper training and oversight. You are much more likely to get the feedback from a principal of the business who accepts the responsibility. If you are just totally unqualified, that's easier feedback to give. When it's a near miss and gets subjective, it's extremely hard to verbalize/express what the mismatch is. One thing to do is to see if people are willing to give you mock interviews where there is no job or corporation involved -- do this for the express purpose of getting feedback. I have offered this to many entry-level programmers I have met who ask for advice on interviewing.
  - jqm 12y ago
    There's an app idea somebody... Simulated interviews. Help companies refine their hiring process and (maybe) find a person they would not have otherwise. And help employees keep their interview skills up to date and have a better picture of how they are viewed by employers...
    - danielweber 12y ago
      Problem is that most employers are hiring for something very specific, something they haven't put on paper or maybe even deliberately decided in their head. It's not "we need a Java developer," it's "I need someone who somehow reminds me of that great guy I knew at my last job, even though it's unrelated to job performance." edit to add: You can interview the same way at 5 different places and get 5 extremely different responses based on the various personalities involved. You can't even go for "finding the strategy that works most often." If 4 places hate you and 1 place loves you, that sounds like an 80% rejection rate, but, like finding a buyer for your house or a partner in romance, you only need 1 person to love you. That's a success. It's a better result than having 2 places hate you and 3 places feeling lukewarm about you.
      - jqm 12y ago
        Oh, I agree. At the same time I think there are general rules about what makes a successful hire/interview. Maybe someone could help people practice those. It's one thing to read a book. Another entirely to practice.
  - kordless 12y ago
    I agree with this. It's an unfortunate thing we put a price on the legal burden that seems to occur time and time again to companies. We start practicing productive paranoia but forget the opportunity cost of doing so.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    When people ask, we do our best (which is often not great) to give reasons. It's an article of faith among HR people and, apparently, employment lawyers that explaining decisions to candidates exposes you to legal risk. There seem to be two broad reasons why: 1. A disgruntled candidate alleging discrimination could litigate the conclusions in the rejection letter, by generating a convincing amount of evidence that (a) you're wrong about the specific points you raise and (b) you didn't expend a good-faith effort to reach your conclusion, which is really a proxy for a discriminatory rejection. 2. That same disgruntled candidate, again alleging discrimination, could compel you to produce the applications for candidates that fared better, and then litigate the distinctions between the candidate; "you rejected me because I only have 1 year of Java, but then hired such-and-such who only has 3 months of it". To that, several responses: * A lot of other things that are de rigueur for hiring processes, such as "we'll keep your resume on file", can create other legal exposures --- some of them possibly for things other than discrimination, such as a perceived binding promise to alert the candidate to future openings. * Presumably, an aggressive lawyer can compel production of competing applications no matter what the rejection letter says. The kind of person who interviews innocuously, gets rejected, and sues for discrimination is very likely to have an aggressive lawyer. * Sadly, most of the protected classes which are most exposed in the interview process (disfavored race, gender) are not well represented in the candidate pool, and other protected classes (religion, say) don't tend to come up in sane interviews; you may be reasonably well shielded from discrimination claims for most candidates. * Your lawyer (you're at the point where you're hiring, so you have one, of course) can probably up-armor your rejection letters to blunt the concerns about contractual reliance and comparative evaluation of offers. To my mind, the bigger reason not to give detailed rejections is that candidates will litigate them informally with you. We're all nerds. Nothing bothers a nerd more than hearing someone else say something wrong. A lot of the time, if you reject a nerd, they're going to assume you're wrong. About them. Angry nerd -> unpleasant conversation -> Twitter rage storm.
- qq66 12y ago
  Sometimes that feedback is impossible to give though. If I was a judge in a chocolate cookie competition, I might really like all of the entries. But I'd pick my favorite. What would I tell the other bakers? I really enjoyed their cookies and I don't know enough about baking to give advice on improvement.
ohashi 12y ago
Is there a link to the test?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jqm 12y ago
  https://www.hackerrank.com/tests/530697662bd88 https://www.hackerrank.com/tests/530697662bd88 It's closed. You can still take the test but they won't review it. I did like the format.
rmmw 12y ago
Thanks for the shoutout :)

24 points by jqm 12y ago

cessor 12y ago

Getting feedback on an application would be really valuable. My girlfriend got rejected by an acting college in London just last week - they didn't tell her why or how she could improve. She was really disappointed. Everytime I had an interview and was rejected I was told the reason why and got a suggestion where to improve. Some people actually told me to go look somewhere else and mentioned places, companies and people where I could offer my services instead. I value this kind of feedback in general, even though I have no idea who these Andreessen people are.

loumf 12y ago
It's rough because it opens the company up to lawsuits. It's easier for HR/Management to say "Don't give any feedback" than to give proper training and oversight. You are much more likely to get the feedback from a principal of the business who accepts the responsibility. If you are just totally unqualified, that's easier feedback to give. When it's a near miss and gets subjective, it's extremely hard to verbalize/express what the mismatch is. One thing to do is to see if people are willing to give you mock interviews where there is no job or corporation involved -- do this for the express purpose of getting feedback. I have offered this to many entry-level programmers I have met who ask for advice on interviewing.
- jqm 12y ago
  There's an app idea somebody... Simulated interviews. Help companies refine their hiring process and (maybe) find a person they would not have otherwise. And help employees keep their interview skills up to date and have a better picture of how they are viewed by employers...
  - danielweber 12y ago
    Problem is that most employers are hiring for something very specific, something they haven't put on paper or maybe even deliberately decided in their head. It's not "we need a Java developer," it's "I need someone who somehow reminds me of that great guy I knew at my last job, even though it's unrelated to job performance." edit to add: You can interview the same way at 5 different places and get 5 extremely different responses based on the various personalities involved. You can't even go for "finding the strategy that works most often." If 4 places hate you and 1 place loves you, that sounds like an 80% rejection rate, but, like finding a buyer for your house or a partner in romance, you only need 1 person to love you. That's a success. It's a better result than having 2 places hate you and 3 places feeling lukewarm about you.
    - jqm 12y ago
      Oh, I agree. At the same time I think there are general rules about what makes a successful hire/interview. Maybe someone could help people practice those. It's one thing to read a book. Another entirely to practice.
- kordless 12y ago
  I agree with this. It's an unfortunate thing we put a price on the legal burden that seems to occur time and time again to companies. We start practicing productive paranoia but forget the opportunity cost of doing so.
- tptacek 12y ago
  When people ask, we do our best (which is often not great) to give reasons. It's an article of faith among HR people and, apparently, employment lawyers that explaining decisions to candidates exposes you to legal risk. There seem to be two broad reasons why: 1. A disgruntled candidate alleging discrimination could litigate the conclusions in the rejection letter, by generating a convincing amount of evidence that (a) you're wrong about the specific points you raise and (b) you didn't expend a good-faith effort to reach your conclusion, which is really a proxy for a discriminatory rejection. 2. That same disgruntled candidate, again alleging discrimination, could compel you to produce the applications for candidates that fared better, and then litigate the distinctions between the candidate; "you rejected me because I only have 1 year of Java, but then hired such-and-such who only has 3 months of it". To that, several responses: * A lot of other things that are de rigueur for hiring processes, such as "we'll keep your resume on file", can create other legal exposures --- some of them possibly for things other than discrimination, such as a perceived binding promise to alert the candidate to future openings. * Presumably, an aggressive lawyer can compel production of competing applications no matter what the rejection letter says. The kind of person who interviews innocuously, gets rejected, and sues for discrimination is very likely to have an aggressive lawyer. * Sadly, most of the protected classes which are most exposed in the interview process (disfavored race, gender) are not well represented in the candidate pool, and other protected classes (religion, say) don't tend to come up in sane interviews; you may be reasonably well shielded from discrimination claims for most candidates. * Your lawyer (you're at the point where you're hiring, so you have one, of course) can probably up-armor your rejection letters to blunt the concerns about contractual reliance and comparative evaluation of offers. To my mind, the bigger reason not to give detailed rejections is that candidates will litigate them informally with you. We're all nerds. Nothing bothers a nerd more than hearing someone else say something wrong. A lot of the time, if you reject a nerd, they're going to assume you're wrong. About them. Angry nerd -> unpleasant conversation -> Twitter rage storm.
qq66 12y ago
Sometimes that feedback is impossible to give though. If I was a judge in a chocolate cookie competition, I might really like all of the entries. But I'd pick my favorite. What would I tell the other bakers? I really enjoyed their cookies and I don't know enough about baking to give advice on improvement.

ohashi 12y ago

Is there a link to the test?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jqm 12y ago
https://www.hackerrank.com/tests/530697662bd88 https://www.hackerrank.com/tests/530697662bd88 It's closed. You can still take the test but they won't review it. I did like the format.

rmmw 12y ago

Thanks for the shoutout :)