691–700 of 833 posts
I’m curious about this statement.
What did getting a four year degree after the fact show or create a more compelling argument for traditional college?
Having been an interviewer at a FAANG for many years, I can explain some of the logic behind it. I'm not saying this logic is valid , but it's how we got here, imho. First: we no longer trust the hiring manager alone, because probably they aren't a strong developer. We instead trust strong developers that are well trained at evaluating good devs. At the same time, we don't want to thrust a dev onto a hiring manager,…
I’m a HM at a big tech company with this format as well. Honestly, I really like it. I don’t want to hire the wrong person, it’s expensive and it makes my job awful for a while. It’s great getting data points on several programming interviews, system design, etc. That makes my sell interview so much easier because I can trust the process to assess their technical skills. You need multiple people because you’re consta…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m a HM at a big tech company with this format as well. Honestly, I really like it. I don’t want to hire the wrong person, it’s expensive and it makes my job awful for a while. It’s great getting data points on several programming interviews, system design, etc. That makes my sell interview so much easier because I can trust the process to assess their technical skills. You need multiple people because you’re consta…
> Is it annoying for candidates? Yeah, but we pay you a lot of money I had to go through 8 interviews for a senior position at Facebook and ended up not getting the offer. I wasn't paid a dime and had to use a few vacation days at the job I had at the time in order to take the interviews. Technically I lost money interviewing at FB.
Having been an interviewer at a FAANG for many years, I can explain some of the logic behind it. I'm not saying this logic is valid , but it's how we got here, imho. First: we no longer trust the hiring manager alone, because probably they aren't a strong developer. We instead trust strong developers that are well trained at evaluating good devs. At the same time, we don't want to thrust a dev onto a hiring manager,…
Except that now of course the practice has been by companies offering roles that don't pay huge sums (and at the end of the day are more or less standard CRUD roles). For the reason you cite at the end of your post
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Would you rather be hired and then fired quickly because we didn't realize there was a misalignment? I wouldn't. The fact that your knee jerk reaction to a misalignment is firing someone rather than mentoring them and aligning them with the org speaks volumes about your management style… And managers wonder why they have such a hard time hiring or retaining people right now…
I used "misalignment" as a kind way to say "because we realized we don't want to work with you." But you're chasing a different thread anyway. We're talking about quick hiring and firing being better than thoroughly vetting a candidate. If we want to talk about how to hire junior engineering talents specifical, we can do that. I definitely spend less time per person, trying to find juniors. You have to because t What…
Either you work at startups or you thoroughly vet candidates, not both.
Having been an interviewer at a FAANG for many years, I can explain some of the logic behind it. I'm not saying this logic is valid , but it's how we got here, imho. First: we no longer trust the hiring manager alone, because probably they aren't a strong developer. We instead trust strong developers that are well trained at evaluating good devs. At the same time, we don't want to thrust a dev onto a hiring manager,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's probably also selecting for people who are unemployed and therefore much more able to attend the entire gauntlet than those already employed.
How would this really be possible while currently employed, kids, real deliverables?
Similarly, someone with a flexible, relatively good job is more easily able to look around and find an even better opportunity.
On the other hand, it takes some courage and risk tolerance to step out from the day to day grind and find something better, even if it could ruffle some feathers. That's not something that comes naturally to most people. Break some eggs to make an omelette.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well no. It's expensive for the company too. All of the people involved in the interview process are still getting paid while they are interviewing the candidates. They aren't working on their projects that they have to complete. The company probably has a recruiting or talent acquisition team and the people on that team don't work for free. The company might also work with outside agencies or external recruiters. If…
> All of the people involved in the interview process are still getting paid Except the interviewee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was going to say this. To add more: a single person (HM) might have biases for or against certain candidates. More people in the loop brings in diversity and helps to keep interviewers honest and consistent. Also these roles are usually high stakes and the cost of a bad hire is too high.
> these roles are usually high stakes and the cost of a bad hire is too high Really? High stakes? This fucking site. Have you ever worked as a software developer at a corporation? Nothing about it is high stakes. You spend most of your time dealing with useless idiots who report to other useless idiots, who report to other useless idiots, about a useless product they think is a great idea that every non-idiot knows i…