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

Career advice nobody gave me: Never ignore a recruiter

alexchesser.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 633 posts

Re: Career advice nobody gave me: Never ignore a recruiter

#331

Post by TameAntelope »

pwinnski wrote: post #309
TameAntelope wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it is not; this is how the term is defined: > nep·o·tism - /ˈnepəˌtizəm/ - noun - the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs. [0] > Nepotism is a form of favoritism which is granted to relatives and friends in various fields, including business, politics, entertainment, sports, fitness, religion, and other activities. [1] [0] https://www.…

So you're defining closeness as not including blood relation or friendship? You are quoting definitions which disagree with your assertion. You used the word incorrectly, and now you're doubling down on that rather than leave the word behind. Better hope good recruiters aren't seeing this! ;)

What is my assertion, in your own words?

Re: Career advice nobody gave me: Never ignore a recruiter

#332

Post by TameAntelope »

colmvp wrote: post #226
TameAntelope wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think, "It's always been done this way." is as good of an argument as you think it is, especially considering the discrimination that takes place when you hire referrals over searching for the most qualified candidates. Maybe we should shoot for doing better than how it's been done in the past? I think we can as an industry do a lot better than where we are currently.

A person who is referred (especially in SWE) doesn't automatically mean they'll get the job, they'll still have to pass checks from members who may have never even interacted with the referrer. The advantage lies in the fact that it means their resume/cover gets reviewed while the 200th applicant doesn't. The reality is companies get tons of applicants and on paper most of them might be qualified.

When you have multiple people on this very thread saying they've hired or been hired as referrals without any interview at all, it's hard to say with a straight face that these people still had to pass any quality check whatsoever.

Re: Career advice nobody gave me: Never ignore a recruiter

#333

Post by devoutsalsa »

hn_version_0023 wrote: post #329
qubyte wrote: post #97

Most of the recruiter traffic comes from LinkedIn, which is not particularly surprising. The very first line of my profile there reads: Please do not contact me about cryptocurrency, blockchain, NFTs, or associated technologies. Almost all recruiters who contact me on LinkedIn are talking about... cryptocurrency, blockchains, or NFTs etc. If a recruiter isn't prepared to read even the first line of my profile then I…

I explicitly state in my LinkedIn profile “do not contact me I’m not seeking new opportunities at this time” and I still get a half dozen a week. Recruiters are the laziest humans on earth.

Recruiters work super hard with archaic, shitty tools. You may not like their methods, but (mostly) they are anything but lazy.

Re: Career advice nobody gave me: Never ignore a recruiter

#334

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Tehchops wrote: post #240
0des wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take it by your confrontational response that their comment hooked you somewhat. I can assure you it's the truth, and though it may or may not have been relevant to you in a way that affected you emotionally, the words ring true in my experience. Those who can do the thing don't mince words about it, the ones who can't need to massage what they're saying a bit to not lay the bad news on you like a ton of bricks; it…

"Truth" and "rings true in your experience" aren't necessarily overlapping values. Sure, it's a confrontational response, because I've seen too many solid, empathetic, capable individuals run out of tech by toxic gatekeeping bullshit just like this . Then all I'm left to manage and work with are toxic, self-aggrandizing, "um akshually" engineers who rate appearing smarter than others over working well with others and…

I agree that people trying to appear smarter is toxic, at least if done very often. (Even if not done often, maybe it's still toxic, just not a lethal dose.) That isn't what I meant.

It really comes down to this: You can't blather at the computer. You have to make very precise statements to the computer. If you can't be precise in your communications, you can't program.

That usually spills over into human communications, too. People who can talk to computers can usually talk to humans who can talk to computers, because they can use at least some of the same terms with the same meanings.

And they can talk with the same mindset. You can't show off to the computer. You can't get the code to compile or to run by using more flowery wording. Tech people tend to carry that mindset into their communication with each other.

Re: Career advice nobody gave me: Never ignore a recruiter

#336

Post by onphonenow »

Tehchops wrote: post #139
onphonenow wrote: post #64

"It is a wonderful position of privilege to be in and I’m thankful for it." Insta-delete if I'm doing hiring... ? I've found folks who actually deliver seem to have less of this type of long winded stuff.

Do you have hard data to back that up or is it just anecdotal personal bristling whenever someone says "privilege"?

"Do you have hard data to back that up or is it just anecdotal personal bristling whenever someone says "privilege"?" - Tehchops

This is actually a perfect example of this! Let's take a minute here to look at your response.

"Do you have hard data to back that up"

I literally said "I've found". Folks who go on long winded discussions about privilege do exactly this - redirect, misunderstand, demand impossible things.

I didn't say I had hard data, I said this was just my personal experience. I don't need hard data to back up my own experience - it's simply my experience.

The "hard data" that you seem interested in is often horrendously weak in this social studies type area. This may be offensive or triggering, but measuring job performance is extremely hard, and measuring it relative to communication styles is harder. This raises a question in my mind, are you unable to evaluate the likelihood that hard data would exist so that it makes sense to demand it and you would believe what I presented if I found some? There may be some poor critical reasoning skills here.

"just anecdotal personal bristling whenever someone says "privilege""

Dismissing others experience rather than engaging on the comment. Is your experience positive with folks who communicate like this? Mine is not. The writer is using this over the top over formal language. Their language choice is all a bad sign of ego ego ego. Tech folks are in high demand, they are not gods.

"While I very much appreciate the fact that exceptionally talented and engaged recruiters reach out consistently"... "I will be unavailable for further discussion."

Re: Career advice nobody gave me: Never ignore a recruiter

#337

Post by vanusa »

TameAntelope wrote: post #326
vanusa wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, That's precisely the point - "close" relations. When we talk about business referrals, it by no means implied that the person being referred is a "friend" in the usual sense of the term (let alone relative). Usually it's just someone you vaguely know (by their work , and/or a chance encounter at a meetup or conference), but don't know…

We may be violently agreeing here; what is bad is the idea that someone can get a job because they know someone else, over a more qualified candidate who doesn't know that person already. We agree this is bad, yes? Our industry is uniquely , as in above-replacement-industry, plagued by a diversity problem, and I'm asserting the practice among those in power of favoring relatives, friends, or even friends of friends o…

We may be violently agreeing here;

Violence is completely counter to my way of being - so No.

What is bad is the idea that someone can get a job because they know someone else, over a more qualified candidate who doesn't know that person already. We agree this is bad, yes?

We keep going in circles - with this idea that person that someone in the company already "knows" (or who came in via a referral anyway) gets the job at the expense not just of a comparably qualified (but not known to the company) candidate, a hypothetical more qualified candidate. You just keep assuming that this what happens when companies act on referrals (and implicitly, that it happens a lot).

That's now that I see happening, when referrals are made. But if it's what you want to believe, then it's what you want to believe - and there probably isn't anything I'll be able to say to dissuade you from this belief.

Re: Career advice nobody gave me: Never ignore a recruiter

#338

Post by duskwuff »

MattGaiser wrote: post #118
qubyte wrote: post #97

Most of the recruiter traffic comes from LinkedIn, which is not particularly surprising. The very first line of my profile there reads: Please do not contact me about cryptocurrency, blockchain, NFTs, or associated technologies. Almost all recruiters who contact me on LinkedIn are talking about... cryptocurrency, blockchains, or NFTs etc. If a recruiter isn't prepared to read even the first line of my profile then I…

I have one line from 2017 about working on blockchain proposals. I never wrote any blockchain code. But it is half of my LinkedIn inbox.

Honestly, I'd recommend taking that off your resume, or describing it in a way that avoids using keywords. Your resume doesn't have to mention every job you've ever had, especially if they aren't relevant to the work you're looking for.

Re: Career advice nobody gave me: Never ignore a recruiter

#339

Post by BeefWellington »

Spinnaker_ wrote: post #11

I also recommend a response to every recruiter, but you don't need to explain your privilege, you don't need to suck up to them, and you don't need to justify your actions. "Hey ____. Before we move forward, can you provide me with the company name, a job description, and the expected compensation. Regards"

It's amazing how these basic questions are often like kryptonite to these people.

Protip: If you want senior people to respond, you should probably include that information up front.

I've done several interviews at places only to get to the stage we're talking money and suddenly it becomes clear they were expecting to pay about a third to half of what I currently make for someone in a senior position. Each time I think it could genuinely save a lot of time and effort (and thus money) by just being up front about that stuff.

Re: Career advice nobody gave me: Never ignore a recruiter

#340

Post by jackling »

operatingthetan wrote: post #274
gitfan86 wrote: post #241

Funny Story: A recruiter sent me a detail post about a job. I wrote back and said I was interested. He never responded so I applied to the job online and got it. 4 months later he messages me and says sorry but it looks like the position has been removed. I didn't write back.

I had that happen with a house once. I sent a house to my agent (that I had an existing relationship with), and they never responded. So I found a new agent and bought the house. Old agent reappears two weeks later and I informed them of what happened.

Curious to know what their response was.
Post reply on HN