No engineer has ever sued because of constructive post-interview feedback

Post by randomdude402 » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 2:07 AM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #265

0x445442 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non paid take home projects... Huge red flag.

Honestly the non paid take home projects are much better. The three interviews I’ve done them for stand out as the best interview processes I’ve been a part of. They actually check for real software skills. The time you spend on-site grinding leetcode with some Google engineer is non-paid as well, so let’s not pretend it’s really any different.

Post by unlinked_dll » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 2:10 AM UTC

ddelt wrote: post #169

kenhwang wrote: post #6

One time we gave feedback on request and the candidate contested the feedback, then went out on a social media rampage. So yeah, we stopped after that. It only takes one bad candidate to make it not worth the effort.

Hot take: you could hire someone who did absolutely well in the interview, and they could find a few weeks into the job that they loathe everyone, and go on a social media rampage. What I’m getting at is, there will always be bad apples, or people who react in a way that damages your organization. But not providing useful feedback to people who ask for it simply because one person went crazy is punishing a lot more p…

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 2:11 AM UTC

wruza wrote: post #268

real_eng_ wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please stop referring to software developers as engineers, unless they are fully registered members of the state association of engineers.

Why? Is there a definition of engineering that does exclude software development, or is membership required to become one?

Post by gowld » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 2:13 AM UTC

meej wrote: post #184

milesvp wrote: post #123

My wife used to work with students to help them get through interviews, and one of her pieces of advice when interviewing is to ask near the end of the interview is if they have any concerns about them as a candidate. It gives the interviewer a chance to address the concerns and gives them a chance to get feedback to make future changes. I’m not sure how well this would work for a technical interview loop, since my w…

I witnessed a candidate ask a question along these lines in a group interview and I found it extremely awkward, because there was huge potential for disagreement amongst the interviewers, and also because this group consisted of people who had a stake in the hire as future coworkers for the role, but were not members of the search committee making the final hire decision, we were just providing feedback to the search…

Post by kenhwang » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 2:15 AM UTC

wwweston wrote: post #105

kenhwang wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employee hours. Someone has to collect, document, sanitize, and explain the feedback. Then respond to the response to the feedback. In the time it takes our recruiter to provide feedback to a candidate, they could have sourced 20 more candidates. edit: I'll argue instant feedback is even more expensive and risky. It's not coordinated, potentially duplicative, may impact/contaminate later rounds, and may not be comple…

> Someone has to collect, document, sanitize, and explain the feedback. Either something like this is being up collected and articulated up through the decision points in the hiring process, or the decisions are being made on a fuzzy basis that can't even be explained internally, which presumably represents a risk that decisions couldn't be properly justified should a candidate suspect discrimination and pursue a cla…