We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#251

Post by ringaroundthetx » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 3:01 PM UTC

gurkendoktor wrote: post #236

nanodano wrote: post #207

When I hear "we only hire the best" it just sounds like generic crap an HR person added, not a big red flag that they are snobs. I don't think it really means anything. By definition, anyone hiring anyone wants to only hire the best. Nobody wants to hire only the mediocre. If I hear things like that I generally just ignore it. Anyway, the author makes all kinds of unfounded assumptions. Someone with .NET and Windows…

> By definition, anyone hiring anyone wants to only hire the best. Nobody wants to hire only the mediocre. ...unless the best ask for more money. When I hear "we only hire the best", I assume that the company is willing to pay very competitively. The other end of the spectrum would be companies that try to do everything with juniors or outsourcing teams.

eh from my experience you can just say that, because there are no consequences and the startup won't be around long enough to get called out on it

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#252

Post by iainmerrick » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 3:03 PM UTC

If Google's hiring is as good as this article suggests, it must have changed a lot in the last few years. Can anyone point me at an up-to-date article on Google's hiring process?

Not so long ago, they were very focused on school rankings, GPAs, and academic qualifications. I always felt this was misguided because it was nowhere near as objective and quantitative as they thought. More recently they said they had a big data-driven effort to improve their process, but it was hard to tell if that really led to new ideas, or if it was just more of the same veiled elitism.

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#253

Post by EpicEng » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 3:03 PM UTC

nanodano wrote: post #207

When I hear "we only hire the best" it just sounds like generic crap an HR person added, not a big red flag that they are snobs. I don't think it really means anything. By definition, anyone hiring anyone wants to only hire the best. Nobody wants to hire only the mediocre. If I hear things like that I generally just ignore it. Anyway, the author makes all kinds of unfounded assumptions. Someone with .NET and Windows…

>By definition, anyone hiring anyone wants to only hire the best

I agree with your overall sentiment, but this isn't true at all. The best cost money, and the best don't want to work on boring stuff. Most software is boring. A team of mediocre devs is more often than not just fine to do the job and it keeps cost down (and turnover likely lower).

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#254

Post by dirktheman » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 3:03 PM UTC

mbrameld wrote: post #211

dirktheman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We had an interviewee showing up in shorts and t-shirt. Turns out he wanted to combine the interview with a tee off time in the afternoon. While not customary (even though we don't wear suits/business attire at our company) he totally got away with it and it didn't affect the interview.

I don't think I'd want to hire somebody who couldn't see the obvious solution: bring golf clothes and change after the interview.

Normally that would be a better solution, but like I said, he totally got away with it. It was a nice way of breaking the ice. I wouldn't recommend it to just anybody, though.

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#255

Post by cableshaft » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 3:03 PM UTC

klibertp wrote: post #194

cableshaft wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many classes did you take in college? Because my first few CS classes I didn't learn a whole lot from either. It wasn't really until the 200 and 300 level classes that I started learning anything substantial that I hadn't picked up on my own beforehand.

If waiting for 2-3 years before you're able to learn anything substantial is considered normal - and we're not talking about monasteries and such - then I think there is something seriously wrong with the system.

I was already writing various types of software, taken a class in high school, gone to summer camps, etc, before I reached freshman year of college. There was plenty of students who had never even touched a programming language before and it was all brand new to them.

And I still learned things my first year (especially in ancillary classes, I only took three computer classes my freshman year), I just didn't get much out of CS classes until sophomore year. One of those classes was a gimme class I really should have tested out of ahead of time in hindsight, though (basically computers 101, I had quizzes on identifying what was the desktop, mouse and monitor).

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#256

Post by Cthulhu_ » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 3:04 PM UTC

bertil wrote: post #32

danpalmer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did exactly the same thing for Thread (a fashion/tech startup) - wore the cheapest most unfashionable suit possible, because I was a poor student and needed to wear something that would work for multiple interviews in one trip to London. No one at Thread cared, no one at most of the other places cared, but I got the impression one more corporate place cared. I ended up taking the Thread offer, and despite working w…

Impostor syndrome is one thing — but you might want to know a bit of how fashion is structured if you work at Thread! I got a ton of points during an interview at a similar company by mentioning my uncle’s fashion brand as something “they might not have heard about”. Instant braggadocious “try me” from the interviewer. Turns out, my uncle’s sneakers are genuinely cool.

Depends, I've worked (as a consultant / developer) at a number of widely different companies, and knowledge or interest beforehand of the domain wasn't necessary. (investment banking, trains, shipping, e-commerce, etc)

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#257

Post by stevens32 » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 3:05 PM UTC

JamesBarney wrote: post #250

nanodano wrote: post #207

When I hear "we only hire the best" it just sounds like generic crap an HR person added, not a big red flag that they are snobs. I don't think it really means anything. By definition, anyone hiring anyone wants to only hire the best. Nobody wants to hire only the mediocre. If I hear things like that I generally just ignore it. Anyway, the author makes all kinds of unfounded assumptions. Someone with .NET and Windows…

If you look at Triplebyte posts they've said before that there is significant bias against enterprise backgrounds. And so they recommend that if you have an enterprise background to try to minimize it in tech interviews. And there methodology isn't just "enterprise people get hired less", it's there is a large discrepancy between how well they do on Triplebyte internal tests and reviews which are pretty standardized…

TripleByte hires for startups right? Seems like a slight bias against enterprise backgrounds (a different environment) is kind of expected

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#258

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 3:05 PM UTC

alskdfji wrote: post #232

This was the most depressing part to me: "Another person I know is in a similar situation because his group won’t talk to people who aren’t already employed." It's a long story, but both my wife and I have most recently been at places, in a small-medium city, that have had huge turnover in the last several years due to mismanagement (her entire unit, except for her, left twice while she was working with them; we've l…

[deleted]

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#259

Post by jo327511 » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 3:06 PM UTC

alskdfji wrote: post #232

This was the most depressing part to me: "Another person I know is in a similar situation because his group won’t talk to people who aren’t already employed." It's a long story, but both my wife and I have most recently been at places, in a small-medium city, that have had huge turnover in the last several years due to mismanagement (her entire unit, except for her, left twice while she was working with them; we've l…

Wait, so let me get this right: 1) Your wife gave up her career to take care of the kid 2) Now she's found a job and is asking you to do the same 3) Additionally, you consider your job a clusterfuck with incompetent management

Seems like a clear decision

Re: We only hire the best means we only hire the trendiest (2016)

#260

Post by EpicEng » Tue, Oct 31, 2017, 3:07 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #55

arethuza wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can be it be an act of conformity to dress formally in an environment where it isn't the done thing?

It's not an act of conformity in that context, but it's usually an act of conformity. The most likely explanation I can see for someone dressing formally in an informal environment is a habit of conformity coupled with an insensitivity to change in social environment, neither of which seems like a desirable quality.

>It's not an act of conformity in that context, but it's usually an act of conformity

Or, you know, some of us just don't like looking like schlubs all of the time. What's wrong with that?