741–750 of 794 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lol read the responses here, you're kidding yourself.
I've read some. Doesn't align with my personal experience is all I can say. I can't remember a case where a candidate refused to do such a test, or that we never heard back from after letting them know that was our policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should be happy for them.
Let's see if you say the same thing when you interview 10+ candidates and you accept one like this, rejecting all the others since you filled the position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's see if you say the same thing when you interview 10+ candidates and you accept one like this, rejecting all the others since you filled the position.
No different from the firm rescinding the offer once the candidate has turned down all his others. Plus it's asymmetric, the firm has other staff that can somewhat do the work, the employee has no income if the job is rescinded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've read some. Doesn't align with my personal experience is all I can say. I can't remember a case where a candidate refused to do such a test, or that we never heard back from after letting them know that was our policy.
That's because those qualified candidates already saw enough proxy signals from you that they knew it wasn't worth the time to apply. Selection bias.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The counter to this is that many people aren't motivated by money, but need to actually make sure the job offers enough money. "Does the salary range enter into what I need for my life" is the question, not "what job ad has the maximum possible salary". A checkbox, not a parameter that needs to be globally maximal
This is what I've been told but it looks like all the other responses to my comment are arguing this isn't really true and people will switch jobs to a higher paying one even if both provide sufficient income to live off.
For example, I would ignore a 10% raise; my reaction to 20% raise would depend on whether I like my current job; and a 50% would certainly be a strong temptation, unless it is a kind of job that predictably sucks.
The companies that complain that they cannot find a senior developer, they usually do not offer 50% more; or if they do, they carefully hide the fact from the unsuspecting audience. It is their choice, of course. I am just saying that it indeed is their choice.
1. 30 min introductory call with their recruiter. 2. 1.5h interview with an engineer involving pair programming and some technical questions. 3. Offer
This was it, very efficient. I was impressed with their interview process and immediately accepted the offer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay so now we're hiring a hiring manager and a developer, great. ...or maybe people in this thread just don't like having to prove they know things in an industry where a lot of people don't know things.
> having to prove they know things in an industry where a lot of people don't know things. The number of people I have interviewed who have been unable to code fibonacci or fizzbuzz, even the number of people with "senior" in their resume, is genuinely remarkable. I can appreciate the tiresome nature of interviews, but someone having to demonstrate that are not simply fakers is, simply, critical to the hiring process…
I believe you; I have met some. Luckily, neither fibonacci nor fizzbuzz requires 4 hours to code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't even know how to respond to your line of thinking here. You've already stated that if I tell you the truth, then I'm lying, because the truth isn't true. You clearly have an issue you've experienced that bothers you, and you are critically concerned with it. That makes sense. Best of luck to you. It doesn't change the reality which is in my case, in the situation I'm discussing, the previous salary of the per…
You're bristling like I'm personally attacking you. I'm not calling you a liar, if you say that you don't explicitly consider previous salary. But you consider things that are correlated with previous salary. Everybody does, and that's why salary is sticky over time. Think of it as an output, instead of an input. I'm asking for you to consciously consider what you might be doing. I don't know! So of course I can't le…
You said distinctly that if I said it wasn't an impact, that I just wouldn't admit that it was. That is calling me a liar.
I do not consider things that are "correlated" with a previous salary. I consider only if you can do the role. You can make less or more, and it doesn't change the reality that you need to fit into a very high performing logical team.
I don't have a college degree, and would never consider it in a hiring process. I don't know if I've ever hired someone with a previous position at a Best Buy retail location, however I have certainly hired people with relevant experience of that.
Again, you continue to assume my actions. That's all you're doing, creating a model in your head of who I am based on your past experiences, and then questioning me to confirm I am who you've made up in your head.
The current process is certainly broken, but it isn't due to interviewing. If you'd have asked that question, I could have explained it. Instead you've done nothing but tell me who I am, which is incorrect.
Have a nice day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're bristling like I'm personally attacking you. I'm not calling you a liar, if you say that you don't explicitly consider previous salary. But you consider things that are correlated with previous salary. Everybody does, and that's why salary is sticky over time. Think of it as an output, instead of an input. I'm asking for you to consciously consider what you might be doing. I don't know! So of course I can't le…
I'm not bristling like you're attacking me, that again is you assuming my reaction. You've done it multiple times. That isn't how you have a productive conversation. You said distinctly that if I said it wasn't an impact, that I just wouldn't admit that it was. That is calling me a liar. I do not consider things that are "correlated" with a previous salary. I consider only if you can do the role. You can make less or…
This is not distinct or clear to me; I certainly can't say you are lying when I can't parse this.
>I do not consider things that are "correlated" with a previous salary.
Ok, I believe you believe this if you say so. It doesn't sound like a lie. I can't understand how you can believe it.
>Again, you continue to assume my actions
The things I am confident about have nothing to do with your actions.
There's a lot of talk about things like "institutional racism" and it seems to me deeply weird that it is such an emotional topic, when it should be a bloodless technical one, given the premises. Namely that because of correlations, outcomes that are not intentional are endemic.
The overall sense I have of your comments is that the idea of unintended consequences is offensive. But how do you correct anything without thinking about them?
Everybody on HN always gets huffy and prima-donna-ish about the idea of a take home assignment. So I'll try to provide a different perspective. For some people, like me, at least in theory, I would love it, because it's much easier for me to shine than when put on the spot in an interview. I like to talk in an interview, but I'm no good at retrieving technical knowledge in real time. Unfortunately, in real life, the…
>. I assume this is because you never know how clever people can be in cheating remotely, so they can't really trust the applicant did the project. I mean.. in the tech world tho... Unless you are literally having someone else do the assignment for you entirely, what exactly constitutes 'cheating'? Isn't it common knowledge that most programmers refer to StackOverflow (or the equivalent site for devops) all day? This…
I've seen stories on HN about one person showing up for an interview and another for the first day of work.
But it doesn't matter so much if it's an urban myth, if the people involved in the hiring process imagine elaborate scams can happen.