Hire people who aren’t proven • Hacker News Board

Re: Hire people who aren’t proven

#151

Post by arkades » Thu, Sep 27, 2018, 3:41 PM UTC

daveslash wrote: post #113

snowwrestler wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By all means, you should use whatever criteria you would like to hire your own staff. But in general, I would encourage folks in computer tech industries to be hesitant to assume such a binary approach to evaluating prospects. "Did you code for fun in high school?" might be a useful question now, because software development as a field is so young that high school students can try out significant work easily. But in…

I agree with you, but I'd like to add to the "did you treat any diseases in high school". I knew someone in high school who wanted to be a doctor. She didn't cure any diseases or perform surgery, but she did read all that she could and was fascinated by medical-themed tv & movies. She had been inspired by her pediatrician when she was young. She did't treat people before becoming a doctor, but from early on she had t…

Ironically, med schools are taking the opposite tack. Because reading books and watching TV shows about medicine are so wildly divorced from the real thing, and because so many kids are really launched towards medicine by their parents, "I always wanted to be a doctor" is considered a (mild) red flag: it's an indicator that someone is pursuing the field based on childish fantasies rather than a rational, adult decision. The former tends to create more failures and burnouts, which med schools try to avoid if for no other reason than because drop-outs are lost tuition.

As a doc: you can't become a doc for love of the profession, because it's a profession you can't test drive. You can become a doc for love of the fantasy of the profession. It's awesome that programming is different in that way: you can't produce an OS in HS, probably, but you can certainly take a run at making simple stuff in python or simple iphone games.

Re: Hire people who aren’t proven

#152

Post by tombert » Thu, Sep 27, 2018, 3:41 PM UTC

I feel like I tend to value theory more than most people, and when I interview, I tend to ask extremely theory-heavy questions that I think are typically pretty difficult.

However, I don't usually care if they can actually work out the answer in a short amount of time, as anyone can probably find an answer to a question in about fifteen seconds on pretty much any search engine. What I measure is how well the person asks questions.

The way I figure it, it's far more important that the worker is good about unblocking themselves; you can't expect someone to have memorized every algorithm ever, but it's not unreasonable to expect them to bother someone who knows a bit more about the subject when they don't.

Just as an FYI, I don't have any fancy credentials, or really any qualifications at all, so it's not like I'm pushing some kind of MIT/Harvard/Berkley ridiculous agenda onto people.

Re: Hire people who aren’t proven

#153

Post by arkades » Thu, Sep 27, 2018, 3:42 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #141

daveslash wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you, but I'd like to add to the "did you treat any diseases in high school". I knew someone in high school who wanted to be a doctor. She didn't cure any diseases or perform surgery, but she did read all that she could and was fascinated by medical-themed tv & movies. She had been inspired by her pediatrician when she was young. She did't treat people before becoming a doctor, but from early on she had t…

Sure, I didn't mean to imply that there aren't people who are passionate from a young age about being doctors--there certainly are! But, I think it's not taken as a necessary attribute within the medical field. There are a lot of great doctors who didn't decide to pursue medicine until college, or maybe even later, and as a whole the field seems fine with that.

> There are a lot of great doctors who didn't decide to pursue medicine until college, or maybe even later, and as a whole the field seems fine with that.

Med schools are increasingly selecting for that, in fact. Second careerists tend to do better (because they're adults), and have less burnout (because they're more likely to have made a knowledgeable adult decision about what they're getting into, rather than being disappointed reality didn't live up to fantasy.)

Re: Hire people who aren’t proven

#154

Post by CzechTech » Thu, Sep 27, 2018, 3:43 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #100

saiya-jin wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to truly care in any soulless corporation that cares only about profits and IT is seen generally as a pure cost centre (banking is worst in this, but others are not stellar either). Another aspect is meaning of life - if your response is work, then you either have that 0.01% type of work which really matters (and is hardly IT, maybe in Red Cross/MSF style), or much more probably you are just lying to yourse…

I used to be that stupid guy who would actually bring work home and do it for free after hours, because I loved programming so much and didn’t have any hobbies. Then I slowly realized it was not getting me ahead at all so switched over to just doing my own little hobby/learning projects at home, that all went nowhere, but hey I was programming and programming is fun! These days I don’t even want to get near a compute…

Who TF "opens a terminal" to start programming? Are you a time traveller from the 80s?

Re: Hire people who aren’t proven

#155

Post by zschuessler » Thu, Sep 27, 2018, 3:43 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #6

I think hiring has become more difficult now that programming has been discovered as a well paying mainstream career. When I started in the 90s most people I worked with had a passion for the craft but now I find we interview a lot of people who have a CS degree just for the career prospects but not out of interest for the craft. I find it much easier to deal with someone who has no relevant experience but cares vs s…

My team has had this issue in hiring. Much of it is due to bootcamps telling students they will make massive salaries after a 6-month course. That has attracted a different crowd of applicants.

We are always open to junior engineers, but lately it has been rough interviewing them. It's common to see applicants with no real world experience asking for $100/hour. About half didn't have a portfolio anywhere, but said they could get a recommendation from their bootcamp instructor.

One of our last ten junior applicants had a passion for software. 9/10 of the last applicants were motivated by money and asked for ~$100/hour rates. We've stopped actively interviewing juniors because of it.

We live in a very affordable city, too.

Re: Hire people who aren’t proven

#156

Post by lvh » Thu, Sep 27, 2018, 3:44 PM UTC

OliverJones wrote: post #47

Joel Spolsky figured this out a while ago. 1. Smart. 2. Gets things done. Read this. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/10/25/the-guerrilla-guid...

There are good tidbits in that post, but the way you measure "smart" is awful and almost entirely subjective. The conversation "just flows"? Really? Gee, I wonder if that's likely to make you hire people who have the same background as you.

I agree that the "gets things done" part is important! But I think you should measure if they can, in a controlled environment, instead of just going off the resume and seeing if it has worked out in the past. Lots of total dipshits manage to ride on the coattails of successful teams.

Re: Hire people who aren’t proven

#157

Post by EnderMB » Thu, Sep 27, 2018, 3:45 PM UTC

He's not wrong. I was hired for my current role without any experience in their tech stack, and nearly a year later I've managed to pick up the necessary skills to get by.

The problem with this advice is that it's tech circle-jerking, in a world where many top tech people don't hold the purse strings. The reason why companies want someone with their exact requirements is obvious - it's cheaper to demand skills than to invest in a skilled workforce.

IMO, it's why most job descriptions are worthless. These people don't exist, and companies don't care if they don't exist. Unskilled employees hold a level of risk, and the balancing act is to ensure they can get the cheapest warm body to do the bare minimum to fulfil the job description.

We, as developers, know that hiring is a mess, but we're not the ones paying for development work. Companies are paying for resource right now, and the time it takes for a developer to get up to speed costs them money, in the same way that it'd cost them more to hire someone with the skills they might actually need. It's why the balancing act of risk is key.

Re: Hire people who aren’t proven

#158

Post by ergothus » Thu, Sep 27, 2018, 3:46 PM UTC

dev_dull wrote: post #117

microtherion wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But in most high-end professional fields, that's not true. Yeah, for some reason, when you're interviewing as a forensic pathologist, mentioning that you're cutting up partially decomposed bodies in your spare time does NOT count as a positive. I still think there is value in looking for passion in people, but maybe passion for craftsmanship in a field other than software should count equally well.

Everybody looks for someone passionate for the job. Why would CS be any different?

"Passionate" in programming is shorthand for "cares for quality" AND "will improve on their own". Companies are unwilling or unable to train on the job (because it requires tech mentor resources they dont have /wont spare) so they are looking for people they can drop in and see payout for without further investment (particularly in time).

I think it is a shortsighted strategy, but not one without basis. The supply problem is real.

Re: Hire people who aren’t proven

#159

Post by namanyayg » Thu, Sep 27, 2018, 3:46 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #108

namanyayg wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing software development in high school requires a computer (even a ~$400 that is shared with the family is sufficient), interest, and time (so one can spend hours required reading tutorials/watching videos). Basically, nothing too much out of the reach of your average teenager -- with the exception of interest/dedication to the art. Doctors, and most other professions, cannot be practiced without a lot more invest…

You're arguing about a specific example but there are many examples from STEM fields. For example, becoming a mechanical engineer doesn't carry the same expectation (from some) that you have spent your childhood tinkering with automobiles and other mechanical devices. There is some truth that it's more straightforward for kids to work with software than in the case of, say, chemical engineering. But it shouldn't be a…

Again, I don't think any child or teen is going to be allowed near any sort of heavy machinery like automobiles?

On the other hand, many students I know who are studying MechE right now did work on lego-kit robotic & Arduino projects while at school. I'm not sure if it'll play a role in their job application, but in my opinion there are genuinely very few fields (only CS comes to my mind) that a teenager can do at their home at a level equalling a professional.

Re: Hire people who aren’t proven

#160

Post by throwaway713 » Thu, Sep 27, 2018, 3:47 PM UTC

FLUX-YOU wrote: post #23

maxxxxx wrote: post #6

I think hiring has become more difficult now that programming has been discovered as a well paying mainstream career. When I started in the 90s most people I worked with had a passion for the craft but now I find we interview a lot of people who have a CS degree just for the career prospects but not out of interest for the craft. I find it much easier to deal with someone who has no relevant experience but cares vs s…

The passion/craftsman culture changed when we started selling our souls for the next ad-click or personal information collection system. While it might have seemed good back then, we now have a massively cobbled-together web ecosystem. I know it's a cheap shot, but those same passionate people built the crap we have today. I don't think it speaks very highly of that time or the merits of passion. (many individuals ha…

It’s an unpopular viewpoint on HN, but I truly don’t believe that using personal information to deliver targeted advertisements is immoral, provided that 1) a best effort is made to make people fully aware of what information is being collected and how it is being used, and 2) a best effort is made at keeping that data safe from being leaked.

I just genuinely don’t understand how if someone gives personal consent to use their provided data in a specific way, then the company is still acting immorally.

Society has moved forward over the last few decades in favor of people using their body however they like as long as consent is given and no one is hurt, so why is it not the same with information? Why is personal consent to use my information not enough, to the point where we want to force companies into a payment/subscription/no targeted ads model that may not actually work for their business?