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

Why are technical recruiters so clueless?

37signals.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 116 posts

Re: Why are technical recruiters so clueless?

#81

Post by Timothee »

unshift wrote: post #76
Timothee wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No offense, but the fact that the money aspect is what you like the most puts me off a bit... it feels too much like the stereotypical "sales guy". However, it explains why I dealt with a couple of recruiters who touted their PhD in their email signature. I couldn't really understand why someone with a PhD would "end up" being a recruiter. But money can explain it I suppose. (they were still bad though)

really, it puts you off that people who exchange time for money would like to get the most money possible for their time?

I'm not put off by someone maximizing the money they're getting for what they do, but I am a little bit by people who do what they do to maximize the money they're getting. Of course, it's a matter of personal taste and point-of-view...

But "put off" might not have been the right word, maybe "disappointed" or "disinterested" would have been better. Basically, I saw swombat's question as a question from a developer interested in knowing if he might be missing something, if recruiting might be an interesting career path for hims. And the reply was like "the money, man!".

I could just imagine the real-life conversation, and know I'd think "oh ok... nevermind, I thought there was more to it".

Re: Why are technical recruiters so clueless?

#82

Post by bphogan »

takrupp wrote: post #53
Timothee wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No offense, but the fact that the money aspect is what you like the most puts me off a bit... it feels too much like the stereotypical "sales guy". However, it explains why I dealt with a couple of recruiters who touted their PhD in their email signature. I couldn't really understand why someone with a PhD would "end up" being a recruiter. But money can explain it I suppose. (they were still bad though)

The money is nice, and it is a "Sales" job, but their is some creativity to it. You are trying to marry a candidate to a client. They are both moving targets. Its a skill game, more than a "bang the phones" game that a normal sales job is. There are a number of quants and C++ developers who made the move to recruiting, sometimes after talking to a recruiter and realizing that there is money to be made (usually more t…

This is exactly why I started doing training and writing, which led me to my current gig at the Pragmatic Bookshelf - I get to work with smart people who want my help. I get to see people succeed, and I get to share in the success instead of handling the late night support calls when the app is down cos the client's cruddy shared host went offline.

I'll always love developing, but I long ago learned that my greatest strength is helping other people become better.

Re: Why are technical recruiters so clueless?

#83

Post by maxer »

i was at a conference recently and had my phone on silent the whole day, I have 8 missed calls and 2 emails in the space of 7 hours from a recruiter. Really, if i didnt answer the first 4 times that day what made him think i would answer the last 4. he was recruiting for a php contractor position

Re: Why are technical recruiters so clueless?

#84

Post by lkjuhygthyujk »

KoZeN wrote: post #16
edw519 wrote: post #10

Why are technical recruiters so clueless? Because they are a little less clueless than most HR departments. Are there any recruiters working in technology who get it? Yes. The top 1 or 2%. The bell curve of competency for recruiters is a lot steeper at the high end, so finding one who "gets it" is difficult. So when you do, keep them. Whether you're hiring or looking, they can change your life. The problem with this…

I'm a technical recruiter and I agree with the majority of this post to be honest. My background: 2.1 in Software Development from a leading Uni in Ireland. 2 years experience as a web developer for a medium sized Irish software firm and I've been in recruitment for just over 2 years now. The amount of fellow recruiters I come across who believe java & javascript are one and the same for example is ridiculous. The ma…

No offence to the above - but it's the same reason you don't find knowledgeable people working in the Software section of the bookstore.

Go into the english-lit / history section of a good bookstore in a university town and the odds are the people working there will have degrees / PhDs in the topic.

Go into the engineering section and the guy on the till is unlikely to be a pEng/CEng.

Re: Why are technical recruiters so clueless?

#86

Post by danielnicollet »

VladRussian wrote: post #79
peteforde wrote: post #63

I'm disappointed to see someone as smart as David casually leaning on a stereotype like "shady Russians". I'm confident that he wouldn't have said "sneaky Jews" or "naive Canadians" or "cheap Mexicans".

have it ever crossed you mind that if someone as smart as David is casually leaning on a stereotype than there are some reasons behind the stereotype?

Vlad, Right or wrong, it's still a stereotype, and I'd appreciate that it be kept off the air. Signed: Arrogant Frenchman ;-) Dan

Re: Why are technical recruiters so clueless?

#87

Post by VladRussian »

danielnicollet wrote: post #86
VladRussian wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

have it ever crossed you mind that if someone as smart as David is casually leaning on a stereotype than there are some reasons behind the stereotype?

Vlad, Right or wrong, it's still a stereotype, and I'd appreciate that it be kept off the air. Signed: Arrogant Frenchman ;-) Dan

i don't honestly understand what is wrong (to the extent what it is almost considered a 10-letter word) about stereotypes usage. A stereotype is just a result of analytical and/or statistical aggregation. In this particular case he didn't stated what all Russians are shady. He stated that there is a [non-empty, and we all know it is really far from empty] set of Russians that have common trait of being shady and there is subset of them such that some email spamming work can be outsourced to them. What is wrong with such stereotype usage?

And is it just my bad luck with Russians (what are the odds?), that i do prefer Moscow-Paris flights when majority of passengers are French than the flights of Russian airlines with majority of passengers being Russians?

Re: Why are technical recruiters so clueless?

#88

Post by iamdave »

Timothee wrote: post #81
unshift wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

really, it puts you off that people who exchange time for money would like to get the most money possible for their time?

I'm not put off by someone maximizing the money they're getting for what they do, but I am a little bit by people who do what they do to maximize the money they're getting. Of course, it's a matter of personal taste and point-of-view... But "put off" might not have been the right word, maybe "disappointed" or "disinterested" would have been better. Basically, I saw swombat's question as a question from a developer in…

So in your opinion, the idea of working is sort of like Pascal's Wager where you should only work hard, and build the best relationships you can just in case you get top dollar, and even then you didn't really deserve it-it was arbitarily given to you.

Otherwise, just be mediocre and be happy to be getting what you're getting?

That makes absolutely zero sense.

Re: Why are technical recruiters so clueless?

#89

Post by joe_the_user »

edw519 wrote: post #10

Why are technical recruiters so clueless? Because they are a little less clueless than most HR departments. Are there any recruiters working in technology who get it? Yes. The top 1 or 2%. The bell curve of competency for recruiters is a lot steeper at the high end, so finding one who "gets it" is difficult. So when you do, keep them. Whether you're hiring or looking, they can change your life. The problem with this…

I've laughed at how little technical recruiters know or understand the underlying technology.

At the same time, I haven't noticed that the few recruiters who understood the underlying technology did any better. In fact, I haven't any good experience with "tech savy" recruiters.

I think it's similar to management. A former-programmer can easily be a terrible manager - they don't know the discipline of project management AND they want to tell you how to do your job. A "tech savy" recruiter can't prove you know anything to the client but still presents you with tech quiz questions to prove their usefulness.

Re: Why are technical recruiters so clueless?

#90

Post by Timothee »

iamdave wrote: post #88
Timothee wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not put off by someone maximizing the money they're getting for what they do, but I am a little bit by people who do what they do to maximize the money they're getting. Of course, it's a matter of personal taste and point-of-view... But "put off" might not have been the right word, maybe "disappointed" or "disinterested" would have been better. Basically, I saw swombat's question as a question from a developer in…

So in your opinion, the idea of working is sort of like Pascal's Wager where you should only work hard, and build the best relationships you can just in case you get top dollar, and even then you didn't really deserve it-it was arbitarily given to you. Otherwise, just be mediocre and be happy to be getting what you're getting? That makes absolutely zero sense.

That's not what I said at all. (and I don't see how you interpreted it that way)

To put it simply, though it is understood that one needs to make money and that it's natural to want to be paid as much as possible for whatever your work is, to a certain extent I value the work itself a bit above the pay. Meaning that I won't just do what I like if it doesn't pay anything, but above a certain level of pay, I'd rather maximize the fulfillment from the job itself.

In that specific conversation I (and I believe swombat as well) got interested in what being a recruiter means and how it could be a fulfilling job in a different way than programming can be. The same way one could look at public speaking as interesting because it's very different from programming. Thus the point of view of someone who was a developer turned recruiter interested me. (with the idea that a developer being usually paid well over decent living conditions, recruiting must be interesting in and of itself* )

However, the answer lost my interest for being primarily monetary, rather than the money being the icing on the cake.

But again, to each his own.

* I'm sure it is. It's just a reflection over that particular conversation.

Post reply on HN