181–190 of 336 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't suffer from Dunning–Kruger because i assume if I am new to something I probably suck. Then I assume I'm new at everything. This is only possible after many years experience. Of life.
Sounds like you are experienced enough at life to fall prey to the "experienced people underestimate their ability" side of Dunning-Kruger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> An interviewer should push you to your limits and the more you know, the more they should push. Granted, this is HN, but this viewpoint is very tech-engineer focused. Most jobs aren't like this at all. Chicken-parts processor interviews aren't like this, para-legal interviews aren't like this, firefighter interviews aren't like this, teacher interviews aren't like this, etc. For the vast majority of jobs out there,…
> Hanlon's Razor states that the mostly likely explanation is not conspiracy, but stupidity. Most of the time, your interviewers are just dumb/inexperienced/busy/assholes. What are the odds that everyone in your interview is dumb/inexperienced/busy or an asshole versus the odds that it's just you ?
In a lot of tech interview loops, all it takes is one idiot or one asshole to torpedo your candidacy.
The practice interview point strikes me as odd. In large, because I have never done one. Do folks really typically do that many practice interviews? I don't even know how to study. I sometimes consider it, but have never spent more than an hour prepping for an interview. :( It worries me, because I know that interviewing is a skill. But are we not setting folks up to over index on that skill such that they have diffi…
As far as practice interviews: Companies always take the full time they scheduled for your interview no matter when they've decided you failed. Then a week later they may drop you an email informing you that they've chosen to pass on your candidacy. They then ignore or deny any request for feedback (something about liability). So, interviewing with most companies may never inform you about why you're getting rejected…
One of the many unintended consequences of anti-discrimination law
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Notice that, when they say they only hire the top 1%, there's a vicious sampling bias at work: even in a worst case where they're being literal they're actually hiring the top 1% of their applicants , not the top 1% of engineers . Think about how many jobs you usually apply for before getting one. Now imagine someone that's less successful than you at getting hired and think about how many times they're interviewing.…
There is a great article on the fact that everybody hires only the top 1% : https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2005/01/27/news-58/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was spread out over three days: one phone screen and two separate days of in-person interviews. It wasn't even for a really amazing job (we're not talking FAANG here). You know - because we're in such high demand?
That does seem unusual. Who does 2 days of onsite interviews for an engineering job?
As someone with no credentials or official training, and someone who also works at a big megacorporation as an engineer, imposter syndrome hits me fairly hard, especially during interviews. It's really hard to compete with the people who actually have proof that they know what they're doing, and I'm usually interviewing for a job that has a strict requirement of a "bachelors in CS, Math or Physics, Masters preferred"…
"It's really hard to compete with the people who actually have proof that they know what they're doing" And yet... as an independent consultant, I'm often brought in to projects worked on by these folks who "have proof that they know what they're doing". If they knew what they were doing, almost by definition, they wouldn't be calling in an outside consultant to fix broken shit. There are often many reasons - cutting…
I've been brought in as an "expert" on all sorts of things, with hardly any interviewing. Just show up and be given the keys to the kingdom.
Granted I've almost always been able to deliver, but they mostly took my word for it up front.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
projects they worked on that failed That's a bad one, considering that everyone is supposed to be upbeat and positive in the face of adversity. You can't place blame on management and the environment that was in no way conducive to success because that's not culturally acceptable. Are we supposed to prepare an answer for that question now as well because the true answer (unrealistic expectations from upper management…
- Are we supposed to prepare an answer for that question now as well ? Nope. I don't want a prepared answer. I want an honest answer. Hence throwing them a rough, non-technical question that absolutely will not be on the resume, but has been part of the career of any experienced candidate. "Autocratic management" isn't a good answer, because it's too general. What did autocratic management do? Were the requirements i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
projects they worked on that failed That's a bad one, considering that everyone is supposed to be upbeat and positive in the face of adversity. You can't place blame on management and the environment that was in no way conducive to success because that's not culturally acceptable. Are we supposed to prepare an answer for that question now as well because the true answer (unrealistic expectations from upper management…
- Are we supposed to prepare an answer for that question now as well ? Nope. I don't want a prepared answer. I want an honest answer. Hence throwing them a rough, non-technical question that absolutely will not be on the resume, but has been part of the career of any experienced candidate. "Autocratic management" isn't a good answer, because it's too general. What did autocratic management do? Were the requirements i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I often ask interviewees about a project they worked on that was very successful, and why it was successful - what did they like about it? That's a good way to find those passion points. It's also a good way to find weak candidates without independence or leadership skills, because they can't really talk about their role in a big success - they didn't have much of a role, usually. A flip-side question is to ask about…
projects they worked on that failed That's a bad one, considering that everyone is supposed to be upbeat and positive in the face of adversity. You can't place blame on management and the environment that was in no way conducive to success because that's not culturally acceptable. Are we supposed to prepare an answer for that question now as well because the true answer (unrealistic expectations from upper management…
For example, "we made several governance mistakes on a project that meant we didn't have enough time to finish the project. On the next project, I made sure to be clearer with estimates and buffer time, so that the team etc. etc." and "Our management doesn't listen" can describe the same situation.
Again, definitely agree you are in the danger zone so its important to be thoughtful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe in a couple years we can talk about statistics suggesting inherent gender differences in academic interest without getting screamed at.
it's almost impossible to prove that something is inherent to a gender vs culturally embedded (education, norms, myths etc.)