Train before you hire

#1

Post by thesethings » Tue, Jan 25, 2011, 1:27 AM UTC

Train before you hire
blog.codelesson.com

Re: Train before you hire

#2

Post by atgm » Tue, Jan 25, 2011, 2:18 AM UTC

It sounds like a great idea to me! You can also get a look at prospective employees and see how well they learn/deal with the unknown.

Re: Train before you hire

#3

Post by ekanes » Tue, Jan 25, 2011, 2:27 AM UTC

It's an interesting idea, but I can't help but think after reading the following that the post is just fantastically subtle PR.

"Today I had an epiphany. Maybe the right thing to do is to enroll prospective job applicants in some kind of low-impact training as part of the interview process. If the training were given in a part-time, online format (like we do at CodeLesson)..."

Re: Train before you hire

#4

Post by sayemm » Tue, Jan 25, 2011, 2:59 AM UTC

Regarding training/interviewing, I just think about this awesome Steve Yegge post: http://sites.google.com/site/steveyegge2/practicing-programm...

"It's a bit easier to tell if someone's in great shape physically than if they're in great shape mentally. You can't just stare at their brain and hope to find a six-pack in all those folds. It's easy to tell how physically fit someone is. You can make people run laps, lift things, take their physical measurements, etc.

But for determining someone's mental fitness, you pretty much have to interview them. It it's hard to do a good job of it, since it's like running backwards in front of the person, egging them to go faster. You have to be in pretty good shape yourself to be a good interviewer."

Re: Train before you hire

#5

Post by petercooper » Tue, Jan 25, 2011, 2:59 AM UTC

ekanes wrote: post #3

It's an interesting idea, but I can't help but think after reading the following that the post is just fantastically subtle PR. "Today I had an epiphany. Maybe the right thing to do is to enroll prospective job applicants in some kind of low-impact training as part of the interview process. If the training were given in a part-time, online format (like we do at CodeLesson)..."

but I can't help but think after reading the following that the post is just fantastically subtle PR.

That would apply to about a third of the posts that make it to the HN front page nowadays, I'd say ;-)

Re: Train before you hire

#6

Post by jeffreymcmanus » Tue, Jan 25, 2011, 3:12 AM UTC

ekanes wrote: post #3

It's an interesting idea, but I can't help but think after reading the following that the post is just fantastically subtle PR. "Today I had an epiphany. Maybe the right thing to do is to enroll prospective job applicants in some kind of low-impact training as part of the interview process. If the training were given in a part-time, online format (like we do at CodeLesson)..."

Subtle nothing. It's a corporate blog, champ. In what way does that make the premise invalid?

Re: Train before you hire

#7

Post by thesethings » Tue, Jan 25, 2011, 3:27 AM UTC

ekanes wrote: post #3

It's an interesting idea, but I can't help but think after reading the following that the post is just fantastically subtle PR. "Today I had an epiphany. Maybe the right thing to do is to enroll prospective job applicants in some kind of low-impact training as part of the interview process. If the training were given in a part-time, online format (like we do at CodeLesson)..."

I hear ya, but the agenda (mostly) doesn't matter to me. I assume corporate blog posts are published for commercial reasons, even when it's about the author's personal life.

And I've gotten so much value out of HN discussions that benefit the site linkee (lots of awesome threads start out "Show HN: My new site/business").

I guess my main point is: I'm all for the business linked to getting PR, as long as we, the HN members get some cool value out of it. In this case, i thought the post was very topical because talent/skill shortage is a frequently talked about issue here, as are work cultural norms in general.

But I totally respect the opinion that some posts may not have an interesting enough ideas to make PR interesting. That said, I always wait for the other shoe to drop: the HN thread it spawns often ends up being incredible.

Re: Train before you hire

#8

Post by listrophy » Tue, Jan 25, 2011, 3:33 AM UTC

Standard practice at my company: interviewees pair with a developer for a week before being offered a job. Preferably, over the week, you'd switch pairs at least once or twice.

If we don't hire you, we pay you as a contractor for your time. If we do hire you, we pay you either as an employee or contractor for your time (depending on what our accountant says).

We'll bend the rules depending on circumstances, but basically you're not getting in unless you spend 30 hours pairing with our devs. Anything else, I propose, can be hazardous to the culture and effectiveness of your company.

Re: Train before you hire

#9

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 25, 2011, 3:37 AM UTC

listrophy wrote: post #8

Standard practice at my company: interviewees pair with a developer for a week before being offered a job. Preferably, over the week, you'd switch pairs at least once or twice. If we don't hire you, we pay you as a contractor for your time. If we do hire you, we pay you either as an employee or contractor for your time (depending on what our accountant says). We'll bend the rules depending on circumstances, but basic…

[deleted]

Re: Train before you hire

#10

Post by ebiester » Tue, Jan 25, 2011, 3:44 AM UTC

IIRC, this is how AOL used to work. Everyone started in the call center. After 6 months, you could start working your way up, and many people went into QA and programming from there.