601–610 of 653 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
BTW, this is a 'solved' problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem
The optimal solution only picks the best candidate 37% of the time.
Still, this method at least has some structure to it. As opposed to the anecdotes that the rest of the thread is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd rather not denigrate a specific employer. The reality is that they bill your time to the government a certain way based on your qualifications, and the contract specifies what qualifications you're expected to have. If you grow or change in some way the contract doesn't capture, they can't give you a raise without losing money (since the contract pays them the same). So classically you have to switch to another j…
So were you employed by one of the companies on the list I gave or were you just sharing your experience with defense contracting in general?
Also, that company would compensate you to get a master's degree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Then I throw them in the deep end of the pool to see how they cope in the unknown." That's a good sign that the tech interview process is very broken.
> That's a good sign that the tech interview process is very broken That could be the case, or maybe at that stage we're past a verbal phone screening, 1. interview, and they've been selected for the last round of interviews. They know before hand what the nature of the interview will be, including the "deep end of the pool" question. It is far and away the best way I've found to see how well they can adapt to new th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's fun for text-based debate, but aren't you just ignoring the greater contextual situation for the sake of argument? the distance between anonymous internet comments and professional discourse is wider than what you're implying
Why should the distance between between anonymous internet comments and professional discourse be wide? If your comment is about professional matters then you should have enough professionalism to make you point appropriately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't like resumes as 98% of each is probably bullshit unless the candidate is a truly amazing rockstar with 10+ years of valid experience. As a result any heuristic applied to resumes is just as worthless as most candidates. When I have interviewed in the past I literally stopped reading once I see contact information and save reading it for during the interview. If the contact information is not the first thing o…
You've mentioned several ways to reduce the number of candidates that you consider for each role, but I don't see how any of it leads to better quality hires.
If this is a measure to eliminate candidates who are ultimately less interested in doing the work then so be it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't like resumes as 98% of each is probably bullshit unless the candidate is a truly amazing rockstar with 10+ years of valid experience. As a result any heuristic applied to resumes is just as worthless as most candidates. When I have interviewed in the past I literally stopped reading once I see contact information and save reading it for during the interview. If the contact information is not the first thing o…
>I would tell them jQuery isn't available in this job. Half would immediately drop out. Good. Unless the job description made clear why it wasn't available, I would take this as a sign of a toxic workplace and avoid it. It isn't about jQuery being banned, it is about the type of workplace where jQuery is not only banned, but such a ban is mentioned early in the interview process. I guess if you want people who are ok…
You avoided explaining this. If eliminating unnecessary abstraction is offensive to you then I would be more happy to eliminate you from employment consideration at the earliest possible moment so that I don't waste your time.
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 don't like resumes as 98% of each is probably bullshit unless the candidate is a truly amazing rockstar with 10+ years of valid experience. As a result any heuristic applied to resumes is just as worthless as most candidates. When I have interviewed in the past I literally stopped reading once I see contact information and save reading it for during the interview. If the contact information is not the first thing o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't like resumes as 98% of each is probably bullshit unless the candidate is a truly amazing rockstar with 10+ years of valid experience. As a result any heuristic applied to resumes is just as worthless as most candidates. When I have interviewed in the past I literally stopped reading once I see contact information and save reading it for during the interview. If the contact information is not the first thing o…
I fail to see what's good about your approach. I suppose if your company has a lot of pointless bullshit that doesn't apply to the actual problem, then yeah, you're selecting for people who either are willing or have no other alternative.
It was pretty clear in that the primary motivation was to eliminate candidates who either lack confidence or competence so that you can spend more quality time with those candidates who care more about the respective skills.
I don't know you, but I am guessing from your highly defensive tone that you likely fall into one of the categories I described in the previous paragraph. If this means of candidate elimination is emotionally offensive you should ask yourself why. When candidates exceed the number of openings somebody must be eliminated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't like resumes as 98% of each is probably bullshit unless the candidate is a truly amazing rockstar with 10+ years of valid experience. As a result any heuristic applied to resumes is just as worthless as most candidates. When I have interviewed in the past I literally stopped reading once I see contact information and save reading it for during the interview. If the contact information is not the first thing o…
>As a result any heuristic applied to resumes is just as worthless as most candidates. Disrespect permeating the industry. A candidate is either a rock star 2% or worthless the rest. And everybody does successfully hires only rockstars. Mathematical paradox. Though seeing how you mention 10 years experience as something important I'd guess you're young, and that would explain your gimmicky and capricious approaches t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't like resumes as 98% of each is probably bullshit unless the candidate is a truly amazing rockstar with 10+ years of valid experience. As a result any heuristic applied to resumes is just as worthless as most candidates. When I have interviewed in the past I literally stopped reading once I see contact information and save reading it for during the interview. If the contact information is not the first thing o…
Have you tried recursively applying your own statement about heuristics to your own heuristics? The only thing you are doing is declaring that your own simplified view of the world is truer than other people's simplified view of the world. At least most people are self conscious enough to know that the simplifications lose information but is somewhat unavoidable due to amount.
I am less interested in copy-paste coders.