Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

danluu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 653 posts

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

#281

Post by digitalsushi »

beat wrote: post #275

So here's the thing... hiring at larger, growing companies often means weeding through a stack of a hundred resumes, for one or two or five roles. Most of those resumes need to go away. The interview process, for competent candidates, is going to cost you at bare minimum a half hour of one person's time for initial screening. A quality interview is going to take a couple of hours each for a few important people - man…

i overheard this in an elevator,

"our HR department tosses the bottom half of resumes in the pile into the trash because we refuse to hire unlucky people"

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

#282

Post by monsieurbanana »

gerbilly wrote: post #277
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. By definition anyone buying a car wants to only buy the best. But then people buy way more Camry's than Ferraris so maybe there are other variables than what is 'best' at play? :-)

Both in cars and in employees by 'best' they mean best quality/price for some arbitrary ratio.

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

#283

Post by hpcjoe »

Klockan wrote: post #228
hpcjoe wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. I've got a Ph.D. in theoretical physics, am very math heavy, created a number of algos for my work over the last 25+ years (in physics sim, bioinformatics, systems management/orchestration, etc.), run sessions at an ACM conference, yadda yadda yadda. Two google interviews, and nothing. From what I hear from other people I consider way smarter than I, they also got nothing. Google has a much copied process,…

> I've got a Ph.D. in theoretical physics, am very math heavy, created a number of algos for my work over the last 25+ years (in physics sim, bioinformatics, systems management/orchestration, etc.), run sessions at an ACM conference, yadda yadda yadda. > Two google interviews, and nothing. From what I hear from other people I consider way smarter than I, they also got nothing. Then you and your friends weren't fluent…

> Then you and your friends weren't fluent enough with algorithms. That is the point, they don't care about all of your degrees, years of experience, conferences etc, they care about your fluency with maths and algorithms.

I didn't fail those portions. Actually did quite well on them. So did my friends.

You are making a number of invalid assumptions, starting from the assumption that their processes are fundamentally accurate or correct. My supposition is from the viewpoint that all systems are fundamentally flawed, and the goal is to minimize risk associated with a flawed system.

I know it is generally hard to acknowledge that google does things wrong, but ... IMO (and I am fairly sure I am not alone here) ... they have a number of significant issues that they haven't quite moved past yet, and this is one of them. Remember, they started out with brain teasers, and school pedigree. The new system isn't demonstrably better IMO, but it helps them convince themselves that it is.

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

#284

Post by stefantheard »

koolba wrote: post #273
stefantheard wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I noticed you said "nearly nothing", what are some exceptions? I'm curious why anyone would start using Oracle now. The only reason I would see to use it is because you are reasonably dependent on it already and cannot migrate easily.

> I noticed you said "nearly nothing", what are some exceptions? I'm curious why anyone would start using Oracle now. The only reason I would see to use it is because you are reasonably dependent on it already and cannot migrate easily. Ultra high end OLTP system leveraging Oracle RAC. It's a very specific use case that goes beyond basic replication where you require ACID compliance, HA, multi master (in this case vi…

Interestingly even in this use case I believe PostgreSQL would be my choice, although as you said it is a silly setup. I had not taken into account particularly narrow implementations that rely on specific Oracle pieces, I could see some going that way if that's the case.

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

#285

Post by bonzini »

adamnemecek wrote: post #268
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…

> Nobody wants to hire only the mediocre. Employee education is such an undervalued idea. Like you can get workers on the cheap and then setup incentives for education/self-education. I'm yet to see a company that sets up some sort of education pipeline for it's employees. I know that startups don't have time and or money but education doesn't need to be as long as the school system made you believe.

Red Hat hires a lot of fresh college graduates rather than aiming at existing "open source stars". Many then grow to become the maintainers of the projects they work on, and choose to stay in the company that let them grow. This is different from many other companies which hire current maintainers for public work and have the younger ones work more behind closed doors.

(I work at RH, but actually I heard the above observation first here on HN from someone that is at Google).

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

#286

Post by Blazespinnaker »

beat wrote: post #275

So here's the thing... hiring at larger, growing companies often means weeding through a stack of a hundred resumes, for one or two or five roles. Most of those resumes need to go away. The interview process, for competent candidates, is going to cost you at bare minimum a half hour of one person's time for initial screening. A quality interview is going to take a couple of hours each for a few important people - man…

no, your filtering mechanism is irresponsible. I'd recommend relying less on resumes and more on referrals from a trusted network.

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

#287

Post by baddox »

mrkurt wrote: post #272
EpicEng wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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).

Usually just append "... for the position" when you see "we only hire the best".

Or really, “we only hire the best given all our criteria and constraints.” Then it’s solidly in the realm of tautology.

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

#288

Post by wwweston »

malvosenior wrote: post #266
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…

> So if I take time off to watch our child while my wife rebuilds her career, and maybe move to a different career myself, somehow I'm penalized? Pardon my language, but fuck that. No offense but this reads as fairly entitled. Why would your value continue to rise as an employee if you take time out of your career? You will be competing against people who are bettering themselves without taking > 1 year breaks. It’s…

Your premise seems to be that people taking one-year breaks aren't doing something to sharpen the saw. I don't know about you, but I've added more to my skills during some times that I wasn't full-time employed doing study and personal projects than during some times that I was (and yes, that's a sign you should leave a position you're in, but this doesn't always happen immediately).

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

#289

Post by pault »

logfromblammo wrote: post #223
Datenstrom wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes the Navy "trained" me by saying "here are 20,000 pages of documentation on the E-2 Airborne Early Warning aircraft avionics, now go fix it". That has nothing to do with my CS studies, of which I have learned nothing from college and could have CLEPed a BS degree on day one if it was possible and moved on to a masters where I should have been initially placed. > I'm sure you don't know everything. I never claimed…

At least they didn't treat you to a two-week-long PowerPoint presentation. ...on the previous version of the system. ...the month before the training was updated to the most recently fielded version. ...taught by a retired Army guy. ...from Texas. ...who won't stop telling stories about his Army days.

Hey, what's wrong with Texas?

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

#290

Post by linkregister »

adamnemecek wrote: post #268
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…

> Nobody wants to hire only the mediocre. Employee education is such an undervalued idea. Like you can get workers on the cheap and then setup incentives for education/self-education. I'm yet to see a company that sets up some sort of education pipeline for it's employees. I know that startups don't have time and or money but education doesn't need to be as long as the school system made you believe.

A few notable organizations offer paid continuing education (Masters degrees) and have extensive in-house training, with career progression mapped out.

Here are some:

- Accenture

- Booz Allen Hamilton

- Deloitte

- Department of Defense

- Lockheed Martin

- Northrop Grumman

- Raytheon

It’s not just consulting companies and the defense industrial complex, these are just the only companies I have exposure to that offer managed career paths.

A drawback is that in those organizations, the pay is often low. Except the consulting companies, which just expect lots of hours. Either way, there are trade-offs involved.

I haven’t seen a serious investment in education from Bay Area companies, probably because attrition is higher and it’s not seen as a safe investment.

Post reply on HN