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

What is the engineering hiring bar?

blog.interviewing.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 298 posts

Re: What is the engineering hiring bar?

#241

Post by omar_a1 »

manfredo wrote: post #240
omar_a1 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Selection bias pushes men towards high-status, high-paying fields and women towards low-paying, pink collar fields. You do realize that if one sector disproportionately hires men, then there are a disproportionately high number of women in the remaining sectors, yes? The women that aren't hired for those tech roles don't just vanish into thin air - they still need a job, whether it's in tech not. But beyond the stati…

> Selection bias pushes men towards high-status, high-paying fields and women towards low-paying, pink collar fields. You do realize that if one sector disproportionately hires men, then there are a disproportionately high number of women in the remaining sectors, yes? Yes, you're right! Contrary to what you previously wrote, "underrepresentation of the population is literally the definition of bias" underrepresentat…

> If you witnessed your company wrongfully reject women candidates from the hiring process then by all means your company was biased against women.

This is a part of it. There is also an unconscious bias against women in hiring. There's plenty of overt sexism, but unconscious biases are significant too. That whole "gut feel"-based hire is remarkably sexist and racist. As are resume callbacks in favoring male and anglophile names. As are mentoring and promotional opportunities should one sucessfully land the job. As is unaddressed sexual harassment on the job.

Re-read my point regarding statistical biases. The existence of a 20/80 ratio is maintained by biased hiring and attrition. You seem to believe 20% out of 50% is the "correct" ratio because the current ratio is 20%. And now you're trying to claim the sexist bias in tech is equivalent to pink-collar professions which men traditionally avoid. And on we go again with your wonderfully sexist circular logic and reductionist equivalencies.

The fact that you allegedly had never witnessed neither sexism nor racism on the job (while expressing plainly racist and sexist attitudes) tells me that you've been by and large minimizing the problems in your workplace and pretending they don't actually exist. You are very much a part of the problem here.

Re: What is the engineering hiring bar?

#242

Post by manfredo »

omar_a1 wrote: post #241
manfredo wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Selection bias pushes men towards high-status, high-paying fields and women towards low-paying, pink collar fields. You do realize that if one sector disproportionately hires men, then there are a disproportionately high number of women in the remaining sectors, yes? Yes, you're right! Contrary to what you previously wrote, "underrepresentation of the population is literally the definition of bias" underrepresentat…

> If you witnessed your company wrongfully reject women candidates from the hiring process then by all means your company was biased against women. This is a part of it. There is also an unconscious bias against women in hiring. There's plenty of overt sexism, but unconscious biases are significant too. That whole "gut feel"-based hire is remarkably sexist and racist. As are resume callbacks in favoring male and angl…

> This is a part of it. There is also an unconscious bias against women in hiring. There's plenty of overt sexism, but unconscious biases are significant too. That whole "gut feel"-based hire is remarkably sexist and racist. As are resume callbacks in favoring male and anglophile names.

Chances are you're citing a fabricated study: https://www.vox.com/2019/2/20/18232762/gender-diversity-tech...

Again, when we actually try to identify this bias we rarely find the alleged bias against women.

> As are mentoring and promotional opportunities should one successfully land the job. As is unaddressed sexual harassment on the job.

Neither of which are related to bias in the company's hiring process.

> Re-read my point regarding statistical biases. The existence of a 20/80 ratio is maintained by biased hiring. You seem to believe 20% out of 50% is the "correct" ratio because the current ratio is 20%. And on we go again with your wonderful sexist circular logic.

How do hospitals know that 10% male nurses is the "correct" ratio? They don't, they just give people equal opportunity and because 10% of nurses are male 10% of their hired nurses are male. The whole point is that there is no "correct" ratio. Companies should (and are theoretically obligated to) extend equal opportunity regardless of race or gender. Be biased against no one. If you think your hiring managers are erroneously passing on women, measure this bias and rectify it. Bias isn't eliminated by picking a percentage and instructing recruiters to try and reach that percentage.

When a company tries to pick a "correct" ratio and that ratio is different from the representation of people who work in that rule, bias is usually the result. If a hospital one day decided to institute a diversity program that sets a target of 15% male nurses chances are the hospital would end up being biased in favor of men. Likewise, a tech company that decides to set a target of 30% women engineers when women make up 20% of the engineering workforce is going to end up being biased in favor of women.

You might believe that this bias is justified because of bias women might face in the jobs themselves, or bias earlier in life that you believe is responsible for the fact that only 20% of aspiring engineers are women - all that is your own opinion. But bias you feel is justified is still bias.

Re: What is the engineering hiring bar?

#243

Post by omar_a1 »

manfredo wrote: post #242
omar_a1 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you witnessed your company wrongfully reject women candidates from the hiring process then by all means your company was biased against women. This is a part of it. There is also an unconscious bias against women in hiring. There's plenty of overt sexism, but unconscious biases are significant too. That whole "gut feel"-based hire is remarkably sexist and racist. As are resume callbacks in favoring male and angl…

> This is a part of it. There is also an unconscious bias against women in hiring. There's plenty of overt sexism, but unconscious biases are significant too. That whole "gut feel"-based hire is remarkably sexist and racist. As are resume callbacks in favoring male and anglophile names. Chances are you're citing a fabricated study: https://www.vox.com/2019/2/20/18232762/gender-diversity-tech... Again, when we actuall…

Ah yes, another top-tier scientific publication: Vox. Was that research peer-reviewed by Cosmo? I'm delighted that you think that puts the issue of bias in hiring to rest.

Clearly sexism and racism were abstract concepts I just made up for the purposes of this thread, and not something that has real, detrimental consequences to people in your workplace. Or, at least it doesn't effect you, so it must not affect anyone else, right?

But by all means let's keep fixating on these male nurses, and their heartbreaking plight! You seem to keep veering into that topic and away from sexist hiring for women in tech. Not a surprise, I'm sure you apply the same level of avoidance to the women applying to your company.

Re: What is the engineering hiring bar?

#244

Post by DeathArrow »

jgwil2 wrote: post #162
strken wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standards (e.g. algorithmic questions) are bad because A) they're only tangentially related to the work, meaning they include bad hires and exclude good hires B) they put a huge workload on employees who must practice tens or hundreds of hours of underwater basket weaving, time which would be better spent doing almost anything else C) they systemically exclude anyone who can't play the dumb game due to a lack of…

I think of "the bar" as being basically our industry's equivalent to a law degree: it's just a way to show that you have some foundational knowledge in the subject, even if it bears little resemblance to day-to-day work. All of the flaws you enumerated could also apply to law school, but at least "the bar" is reasonably accessible and doesn't cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Not only the law degree is a standard exam, but you only have to pass it once not ten times in your career.

Re: What is the engineering hiring bar?

#245

Post by DeathArrow »

I don't get it why people try very hard to get a job at FAANGs. Could it be because they would feel like they would become part of an elite, could it be because that once they have a FAANG company in their resume, they won't have to pass lengthy and stressful interviewing processes anymore and won't have to job hunt.

But there are many other software engineering jobs with at least as interesting problems to solve, at least as good payment, at least as good job security while being less stressful.

For me, hunting specifically a job at FAANG doesn't pay off.

I'd accept any job that meets my criteria of what I have to do, payment and stress level.

Re: What is the engineering hiring bar?

#246

Post by DeathArrow »

fenwick67 wrote: post #34
chrisweekly wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tech interview process is just so badly messed up. Even if the process were a reasonable proxy for IQ (it's not), or correlated somewhat with use of actual required technical skills (it doesn't), it still almost entirely ignores the EQ (emotional intelligence) and CQ (cultural intelligence) factors which comprise the other 2 legs of the "good hire" stool.

IMO the grueling FAANG interviews actually optimize for how much people want to work at the company. If you're sitting through 10 interviews and grinding on LeetCode problems every night then really all you are proving is how badly you want the job. It's effectively a hazing ritual.

That seems to be it. But I don't get why. It's like wanting to join a gang or mafia: you have to prove how dedicated you are to join a particular organization.

It should be a job like any other.

Re: What is the engineering hiring bar?

#247

Post by joshuamorton »

DeathArrow wrote: post #245

I don't get it why people try very hard to get a job at FAANGs. Could it be because they would feel like they would become part of an elite, could it be because that once they have a FAANG company in their resume, they won't have to pass lengthy and stressful interviewing processes anymore and won't have to job hunt. But there are many other software engineering jobs with at least as interesting problems to solve, at…

I see this said sometimes, and frankly I doubt it. A mediocre performer at Google or Facebook with 3 years of experience is pulling in 250K+. At Amazon and Microsoft, that's a bit lower but still over 200K. And there's upside for a higher performer.

The only places that match that kind of progression are bay area startups/public unicorns and quant finance and hedge funds. And for a competent person, that growth doesn't stop for another few years.

Re: What is the engineering hiring bar?

#248

Post by davedx »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #15

I had a conversation with a fellow engineer and we pretty much concluded that our current company would not hire us with our current resumes if we had to go through the interviewing process. And we are generally viewed as some of the higher performers. I bet the same is true for a lot of other companies.

For sure -- I've seen this at multiple companies. I'm not sure what causes this. I suspect there's a certain element of "pulling up the drawbridge" going on here.

Re: What is the engineering hiring bar?

#249

Post by amznthrowaway5 »

chrisseaton wrote: post #29
xenihn wrote: post #21

The spread is insane. I have interviewed at one FAANG three times within the same year (this one does not have cooldowns). On-site DS&A question difficulty capped at two-sum with no twist for the most recent one (extremely easy if you have seen it before, still doable for most people if they haven't), binary tree LCA (impossible within 30 minutes if you haven't studied binary trees, moderate if you have but have neve…

I think most people should dis-regard what FAANG do. The hiring bar there is so astronomically high that they're only hiring people at the very top of their field. I wouldn't try to take any lessons from FAANG and apply them to the rest of the industry.

> "The hiring bar there is so astronomically high that they're only hiring people at the very top of their field"

The average engineer at FAANG is less than stellar, let alone at the top of their respective fields. People who are actually at the top of their fields can often skip leetcode interviews and only get domain specific questions related to their field of expertise.

Re: What is the engineering hiring bar?

#250

Post by faanginginthere »

fg6hr wrote: post #230
faanginginthere wrote: post #117

After 9 years at the same company, I left my job at the beginning of January 2020 to dedicate myself to leetcoding and interview practicing in the hope of getting hired at a FAANG, more specifically Google. I really started dedicating all my time to interviewing January 1st. It is now March 31st and I am now abandoning the idea of getting hired at a FAANG, or any larger-sized startup and will target early startups wi…

There is a good chance that you're more qualified than all your interviewers except the 3rd one, who looks like a tenured "staff" engineer or manager. This is the reason you don't leave your job before you've landed a better one.

> This is the reason you don't leave your job before you've landed a better one.

I don't agree with this. I actually don't regret any second having left my job before having a new one and would do it again in a heartbeat.

After so many years at the same company I needed a radical change to change careers and had been meaning to find another job for a while but just never had the energy to do so and was just becoming complacent.

Post reply on HN