Live data from Hacker News

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

danluu.com

331–340 of 653 posts

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

#331

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).

Because they are not. This is a competition with a set of rules, like it or not. If you think those rules are silly and arbitrary, then you can start a company that does not have those rules and hire people who do not want to follow them.

Would your company succeed because it does not have such silly rules? I have no idea.

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

#332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

As well as apple, dropbox, reddit, and quora.

Also I think that a lot of startups probably resemble enterprise teams a heck of a lot more than they resemble facebook or google.

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

#333
post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

Then I don't see your point, what are you saying caused you to fail? I have a physics degree from an unknown school, learned to code in my thirties and got a job at Google by just doing well at their algorithms and maths questions so it is definitely possible to get in without ticking any of the hip boxes.

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

#334
post #322
post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, there may not be a tech shortage if teams are “weeding through a stack of a hundred resumes, for one or two or five roles....” But, if there is, I’m assuming that candidates are just applying randomly to any positions that are available. The ‘Tinder’ strategy is probably a good one if the goal is to maximize earnings. However, if one is a ‘5’ it makes sense to spam all of the positions. But, if one is a ‘10’,…

I think google did a good job of this in the early days. They got the word out on the street that their interviews were notoriously difficult. That probably dissuaded a lot of the random applicants. I also read somewhere that some big bank (Goldman) just has a very circuitous, lengthy application process and the main point of it is to weed out the spray and pray applicants.

i’m pretty certain google is the most applied to company in the world so not sure if that holds up

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

#335

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…

It is very possible their work experience was irrelevant. I have worked in enough different companies--some that I chose, and some that bought my employer--to see that no two of them were similar enough for more than a fraction of my technical experience to be relevant.

I consider my aptitude and adaptability to be my most valuable work qualities. My experience only comes into play when I see my current company about to make a mistake that I have already seen at previous companies. Like gratuitously adding a stand-up meeting to the dev process.

My experience with two previous attempts at cargo-culting the stand-up meeting led me to caution against a third attempt, at a third company. And then I got "at will" fired for not being "enthusiastic" enough about the new dev process. So now my experience tells me that only power can speak truth to power. In the absence of a union, I will not warn a manager whom I do not trust when they are about to do something stupid. I will instead send out resumes, and ghost the instant I get an offer from a less-bad company.

My current company is gutting the health care plan. That's fine. Everything is fine. No, I have no problems with it. I am updating my resume for completely unrelated reasons.

So in some sense, "irrelevant work experience" might actually mean "experienced enough to call us out on our bullshit".

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

#336

It would be nice if the process were a little more transparent. If people just knew that a company rejected them for reason X, that would make a huge difference. If X were stupid, they'd know they missed a bullet. If X were rooted in a misunderstanding, they'd have a chance to clear it up. There is so much side-channel information used in the corporate hiring process, and it gets mixed-up in HR far more often than an…

I have had a couple of conversations like that and trying to clear up a misunderstanding hasn’t gotten me the job. And to be honest it felt quite a bit like begging. So it was more energy thrown at a dissapointment instead of concentrating on my next best option.

Think outside of tech--like getting a bad reference because last manager's phone rings over to one of your old coworkers that didn't like you, or failing a credit check because the rating company sent a report for a guy with the same first, last, and middle, but totally different SSN.

Shit happens.

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

#337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Church groups? Now you have a defacto "If you're not in the boss's religion or congregation you can just piss right off" thing going on which is toxic for the workplace. Even if you were, say the same Christian denomination as him, are you willing to drive to the boss's wealthy suburb to go to the wealthy suburban church every Sunday solely for your career? Nothing says the organization doesn't care about merit or…

What about having to drive to the wealthy suburb and pay an initiation fee and an expensive monthly membership to join the gym your boss goes to? How is that any different?

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

#338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The thing is you can't avoid bias. Even filtering based on resumes is a form of bias.

Networks and referral are the way many folks find jobs and they're especially important for candidates who have educational pedigrees and career trajectories that are different enough to cause HR drones to reject them in less than 2 seconds.

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

#339

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…

Any decent programmer I know is perfectly fine with switching OSs - if you know .NET and Windows, learning Unix will slow you down for a few weeks, but that's it.

"Work experience" is rather overrated. Critical thinking skills are what matters for the job, and those are in awfully short supply. Rejecting a candidate who possesses them because they don't have the right keyword on the resume is...

Wait. On second thought, keep doing that. Because that means I can hire them. :)

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

#340
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.

The downside of hiring only from "trusted networks" is that you are building an echo chamber.

If you care about diversity (as most companies like TrendCo claim to) then hiring only referrals from your trusted network is likely to lead to entire teams of people that ARE JUST LIKE EACHOTHER. When I talk about diversity I refer more to diversity in viewpoints and experiences, than I do to race, gender orientation, sex, etc.. Whether we like it or not, our friends and networks are made up of people who think and work exactly like we do, that is just how humans are.

So hiring only from networks like that can lead to a huge disservice to the company, especially a growing startup company that usually tends to already suffer with the "diversity of thoughts" problem.

In addition, you are back to the original problem of potentially missing on valuable candidates because you narrowed your search to only people inside of your network. Who is to say that your network is best engineers in the world? By narrowing the search within the network you are missing out on likely better candidates that might come from a normal resume search.

From a pure statistical perspective, lets say you get 300 resumes the first week after posting a job (that's about what I would get depending on the jobs I was posting when I was last hiring). To make your life easy you cut it off after only a week. Well you have 300 potential candidates here that we can assume have self-qualified themselves based on your amazing job posting you wrote. So let's assume at least 80% of them are qualified for the job. That's 240 qualified candidates of which you need to choose 1. How many people are realistically in your network that are available for new jobs when you have an opening? Most of the time I was getting 2-3 at most for any given job coming in as referrals. Compare that to the 240 other candidates you had and you are MORE LIKELY STATISTICALLY speaking to find a better candidate out of the resume pool than the referral pool.It contains a large sample size, simple as that.

Hiring only from trusted networks is really a cop-out for the hiring manager. It makes their job easier because they can blindly narrow down the search to a handful of people without truly inspecting other talent out there. I would argue its more irresponsible than what the original comment suggested.

Plus in my experience I have hired some great people that came in as referrals. But if I also look at my top 5 worst hires I have ever made, all of them have been referral candidates. The truth is that most of the time the friend that referred them will prep them for the interview to coast through the interview. Telling them not to mention certain things and focus on things that our company is looking for in new hires. It creates an extremely biased job hiring process.

Tl;dr - Don't pat yourself on the back for only hiring from your network. You are likely missing out on the best talent by doing so, and creating an echo chamber in the process. Plus you stunt the future growth of your own personal network.

Post reply on HN