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

291–300 of 653 posts

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

#291

Post by baddox »

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.

I doubt the candidate’s problem-solving skills don’t extend to the concept of changing clothes.

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

#292

Post by lordCarbonFiber »

Blazespinnaker wrote: post #286
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.

Trusted network is even worse for bias; at least from my experience with shops that have tried both.

It's how you kill diversity, arrest your growth, and let fallow the connections to recruiting pipelines that might help you escape once you realize how deep you've gotten.

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

#293

Post by malvosenior »

wwweston wrote: post #288
malvosenior wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Very true. He doesn’t mention anything about personal projects or self-directed study though. Only that it’s unfair that leaving his career would be unattractive to future employers.

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

#294

Post by jasonpeacock »

Blazespinnaker wrote: post #286
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.

Now you're promoting "who you know", which is irresponsible as it can pass up many qualified candidates who don't happen to be in the same circles as you.

Does "trusted network" mean alumni clubs? Church groups? Gym friends? What would be an un-biased trusted network to filter candidates with?

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

#295

Post by rdiddly »

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…

So optimizing for making resumes go away, and resigning yourself to shouldering the long-term burdens the article describes. That's what you're describing and that's certainly one way to do it.

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

#296

Post by larsbars »

This is great news for any company who's able to see a few millimeters through the bullshit. Just hire people who are strong with computer science fundamentals, any maybe a few others who can play cross-functional roles. Treat them like a team and create proper mentorship/leadership dynamics. Work towards a common goal and empower the team. Watch them become one of the more functional teams in the tech industry.

The companies that hire fresh-out programmers from top schools have such an uphill battle. They have to handle people who have huge ego's from being sought after all bickering with each other on the team. They have to deal with the mistakes of people who think they know how to build something good for the company but are actually just wide-eyed and pig-headed. And then they have to deal with the fact that these people who are the "cream of the crop" will leave in a year or two to another companies' offer because even though this first company hired with a high salary no company in tech understands how to promote or give raises from within. It's always about the fresh and shiny new employee because almost all of tech is broken and once the reality of a team/person is seen it never meets expectations.

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

#297

Post by eastbayjake »

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…

There's not a lot of empathy in these comments, so I just wanted to say that I've been there and I know it's scary. It's a shame that hard-working people with an education can't find opportunities outside of a handful of metro areas. I moved to the Bay Area for the job density, but I understand why people with families aren't eager to do the same -- I'm single and childless and most days I wonder why I keep living here.

Best of luck with everything. If you don't want to freelance and don't mind travel, DM me for an opportunity.

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

#298

Post by logfromblammo »

pault wrote: post #289
logfromblammo wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You ever notice how most people never tell you what state they're from unless you ask them? It's almost like they don't believe their state of origin to be all that important to their personal identity. Some of those people might even be from Texas.

But the hombre from Texas is not one of those people. He will drive for 30 minutes, past dozens of ordinary, mundane restaurants, to reach the nearest Texas-style barbecue restaurant, run by a fellow expatriate Texan, who shoulders the burden of living outside of Texas for the sake of fellow Texans who tragically cannot be in the best state all the time, yet need to regularly consume bits of Texas in order to survive.

Ironically, Texas has so many people in it, all constantly surrounded on all sides by Texas, that you cannot easily identify that guy until he actually leaves the state.

Also, the thing that's wrong with Texas is football. That is easily 120% of my problem with Texas.

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

#300

Post by FilterSweep »

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…

> "Another person I know is in a similar situation because his group won’t talk to people who aren’t already employed."

This point alarms me a bit. It doesn't even have to be a family circumstance. What about departures for your own mental health, or sabbatical?

So if I take some time off to learn a new stack (I'm leaning toward Elixir), and build a few projects with it in my free time, I'm a lesser candidate?

This being said, I do have a friend who did take a year off to pursue music. However, he's what they'd call a "rockstar" and has freedoms most of us don't.

Post reply on HN