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

When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re selling

hiringengineersbook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 694 posts

Re: When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re selling

#271

Post by [deleted] »

solveit wrote: post #194
drb91 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Algorithmic ability has no correlation to the ability to write maintainable code, though. Most time at work is not spent demonstrating ability to regurgitate algorithms.

No causation, I'd believe any day. But correlation? I'd want to see a statistically rigorous test done before I'd believe that. Correlations are everywhere and pretty much all good traits are correlated with each other. Hell, even vocabulary size and reflex speed is correlated. And this is probably why even terrible methods for selection usually kind of work.

[deleted]

Re: When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re selling

#272

Post by toast0 »

jack_h wrote: post #233
kronin wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you design something that needs to be implemented in code if you yourself can't write code? If you can't produce in the trenches, what makes you qualified to dictate what those that are in the trenches are doing?

This reply applies to several here. I know a few architects (as in for buildings and civil structures) who wouldn't be able to pour a foundation, frame a wall, or run plumbing properly. They're working at a different level of abstraction and are concerned with different problems. Or to put it another way, if you can code does that mean you should be able to design a CPU, even a very basic one? After all, how can you…

I wouldn't expect a building architect to do a great job pouring a foundation, framing a wall, or running plumbing. But I would expect them to be able to do it, at least to a basic level.

Architects that don't understand how to do the fundamentals of implementing the designs they make tend to make unrealistic designs, that are expensive to implement and may look pretty, but function poorly for the owners and occupants.

This applies to architects of buildings, architects of software, and architects of hardware. Probably to most high level design and supervision type positions.

Edit to add: many of the best architects of buildings are able to do amazing things specifically because they've studied the fundamentals and are able to do innovative things with materials. Of course, time will tell it the innovation worked out well or not.

Re: When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re selling

#273

Post by gcampos »

lsc wrote: post #216

Isn't it just... mostly money? I mean, if you want to hire someone good, who presumably has a good job, you have to pay better than what they are getting now. I think this is probably especially true in Europe; I mean, as far as I know, people get like a 2x-4x raise moving to silicon valley from europe. If you pay more than your local competitors, you will largely have your pick of the candidates. I mean, yes, things…

Yes, you are right, is mostly money. But there is other stuff that at the end adds up, specially if you are a Senior Engineer in a FAANG company:

* Very few recruiters outreach mentions any kind of compensation expectation. Why would I bother with hours of chat, screening and interview loops if I know only a handful companies offer the same kind of compensation I'm used to receive?

* The bar of a Senior position is quite high, so high that most Senior engineers would not pass it, it requires months and months of preparation. I would do that only if I was absolute sure I wanted to leave my current job.

* I would be willing to receive a little less if a company could offer something that I don't have like a better commute, work on something I'm more passionated about, etc... However, most companies think that working from home is good enough to justify a 50% lower compensation.

The only exception that I can think that compensation is not the main point is if you are trying to hire someone so successful and rich that money doesn't really matter for them. But my guess is that this kind of people are even more rare than senior people.

Re: When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re selling

#274

Post by seanmcdirmid »

notjesse wrote: post #26
ryanworl wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does always amaze me that literally what you learn in HR 101 in an undergraduate management curriculum is controversial. The r^2 of a ton of different methods for predicting job performance is something large companies are highly incentivized to get studied by academics (and they do). Spoiler alert: work-sample tests are the only practical and generally tolerated one to use (for software engineers) that is actuall…

But it’s not generally tolerated. You end up optimizing for sub-prime candidates because those are the only ones desperate enough to take 4-6 hours out of their free time for a company that hasn’t even bothered interviewing you, yet. If they want to turn the onsite into one big work sample, by all means, that sounds very effective (and something I’ve seen work well). But in my experience, you’re going to deter qualif…

I’m really mixed about this.

As a new immigrant, my wife had trouble finding work as a designer until she was given a take home work sample test. After that, the company that gave her the test hired her quickly and she has been doing well with them ever since.

I’m currently doing the gauntlet thing myself, but none of the interviews I’ve done have asked any technical questions pertaining to the role that they actually want to hire me for. It’s all generic stuff that frankly I would have done better on 20 years ago.

Re: When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re selling

#275

Post by phkahler »

tptacek wrote: post #3

A lot of this post seems pretty reasonable. But: In my experience, it’s fairly easy to judge technical skill. A friendly conversation about technical interests and recent projects can often be enough. Bullshit. Sounding credible in technical interviews is a skill, not the same skill as actually being a good programmer, and might even (statistically, in the large) be close to orthogonal to it. We found this out the ha…

Funny. I agreed with the author. It's relatively easy to gauge technical ability vs those who can pretend. I only use a simple take-home problem when I truly can't tell which type they are. The really great part is that I usually tell a faker from the resume. Maybe I should blog about this.

Re: When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re selling

#276

Post by james_s_tayler »

projektir wrote: post #257
james_s_tayler wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how all hiring works by law where I'm from. It's fine.

Sounds like you may also be from a country with a decent social net along with it?

I guess you could say that.

I suppose you do sort of feel a little stressed during the trial period but I've never seen anyone fail it and it applies at every company, so there's no escaping it anyway. When it was introduced some people got quite upset but I can't really say I think it's had a bad effect.

I guess from the companies perspective if they realize they made a grave mistake they can back out of the hire, but they are still very careful and rigorous in the hiring process just like always. It also allows the candidate to bail if they realize the company wasn't what it said it was. It goes both ways. Again, in practice it seems mostly harmless.

Perhaps the US wouldn't do so well with a similar policy maybe even just due to the crazy healthcare situation going on over there. I couldnt say.

Re: When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re selling

#277

Post by tptacek »

phkahler wrote: post #275
tptacek wrote: post #3

A lot of this post seems pretty reasonable. But: In my experience, it’s fairly easy to judge technical skill. A friendly conversation about technical interests and recent projects can often be enough. Bullshit. Sounding credible in technical interviews is a skill, not the same skill as actually being a good programmer, and might even (statistically, in the large) be close to orthogonal to it. We found this out the ha…

Funny. I agreed with the author. It's relatively easy to gauge technical ability vs those who can pretend. I only use a simple take-home problem when I truly can't tell which type they are. The really great part is that I usually tell a faker from the resume. Maybe I should blog about this.

If you're right, demand 2x your salary, because the industry's track record on this is abominable.

Re: When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re selling

#278

Post by Buttons840 »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #224
WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s not even something I can open source if they don’t like it What? Of course you should... make sure you create a repo with the company name and people can create issues to collaborate on a better ToDo sample code.

You’ll get hit with a DMCA takedown notice if you do that.. most companies protect interview questions they ask and solutions to them quite severely.

If it's not an original question find the original source (a source that is older than the company would be especially nice), and post a solution to the question posed by the original source. The world is a big place, a lot of question are not original.

Re: When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re selling

#279

Post by paulcole »

sethammons wrote: post #156
rockinghigh wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Living on a 10-acre lot sounds like a nightmare.

Why? I'm on 10 acres. I like it for the isolation. Just got it, so maintaining and improvements are going to be interesting and a big learning opportunity.

Some people hate maintenance and isolation as much as you like it.

Re: When hiring senior engineers, you’re not buying, you’re selling

#280

Post by unclebucknasty »

phkahler wrote: post #275
tptacek wrote: post #3

A lot of this post seems pretty reasonable. But: In my experience, it’s fairly easy to judge technical skill. A friendly conversation about technical interests and recent projects can often be enough. Bullshit. Sounding credible in technical interviews is a skill, not the same skill as actually being a good programmer, and might even (statistically, in the large) be close to orthogonal to it. We found this out the ha…

Funny. I agreed with the author. It's relatively easy to gauge technical ability vs those who can pretend. I only use a simple take-home problem when I truly can't tell which type they are. The really great part is that I usually tell a faker from the resume. Maybe I should blog about this.

Good to hear you say take-home problems, as I believe it's a much more realistic assessment than is whiteboarding per what the job actually entails.

Being a good dev is about being thoughtful in assessing a problem and designing/implementing a solution. This vs standing up in front a group of people and hastily trying to devise a solution to a random challenge.

Post reply on HN