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

The real reason you can't hire developers....

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 271 posts

Re: The real reason you can't hire developers....

#161

Post by fhars »

jemfinch wrote: post #126

I'm going to say it because it seems no one else is. I apologize ahead of time for my brutal honesty. You need to consider the possibility that you're not as competent as you believe yourself to be. Dunning-Kruger[0] is real, and your post doesn't demonstrate the self-awareness the best developers seem to possess. Your writing is sprinkled with emoticons and rife with reduplicated punctuation, both of which (especial…

For what it's worth, more recent studies can only reproduce Dunning-Kruger for simple tasks, for difficult tasks the unskilled have a far more realistic view of their abilities than the highly skilled: http:/www.chicagocdr.org/cdrpubs/pdf_index/cdr_560.pdf

Re: The real reason you can't hire developers....

#162

Post by tomjen3 »

aiurtourist wrote: post #137

LESSON: riddle/puzzles/challenges might seem cool to you but might just seem like another hoop to me. I understand this sentiment, but pre-interview homework (provided that it's reasonable) is one of the best indicators of enthusiasm, attention to detail, creativity, and ballpark of coding skill. Most importantly it reveals how you will react to solving one of our problems which, if hired, is what you'll be doing mos…

The problem with that is that you then end up in the second pile when we sort job offers (and at present there are plenty of jobs) -- and we know it so we know that your employees are more likely to be second rate, the kind who couldn't get a job at the non-hoop companies.

And who really want to work with second-rate programmers?

Of course if you are Google, Facebook or another company as well know (or potentionally profitable) then you might have an alternative.

Re: The real reason you can't hire developers....

#163

Post by dsolomon »

bengl3rt wrote: post #91
nirvana wrote: post #76

I think the fundamental problem is that companies want a "Sr. Software Engineer" with >7 years of development and >4 years of development in their particular language, who also is young enough to think that "Nerf guns" and "xbox's" [sic] are an appealing "Benefit" and that aren't going to ask anywhere near $115k a year. (a totally reasonable salary, by the way, but I think you lose edge in negotiations by putting tha…

Also, $115k for a senior engineer? Really great "entry level" (i.e. recently graduated but mostly self taught with lots of internships under belt) is going for $110k... most of the "seniors" I know are running $200k plus.

Credible citation needed.

Re: The real reason you can't hire developers....

#164

Post by anonymoushn »

AdamTReineke wrote: post #95
bengl3rt wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, $115k for a senior engineer? Really great "entry level" (i.e. recently graduated but mostly self taught with lots of internships under belt) is going for $110k... most of the "seniors" I know are running $200k plus.

What defines "really great"? I'm a student graduating in two years and $110k is almost twice as high as the average CS/SE undergrad starting salary from my midwest University.

I'm not sure what defines "really great," but if you interview at half a dozen bay area companies you should get at least one offer like that.

Re: The real reason you can't hire developers....

#165

Post by gherlein »

thoughtsimple wrote: post #64
gatlin wrote: post #23

I applied to a kind-of sinking ship in Palo Alto last year. Got through a few interviews, answered all the questions right, and was gently let down. It was a stab in the dark. My friend who worked there (and, in fact, recommended me) told me the developer doing the interviews has never actually recommended a single candidate and is no longer allowed to do interviews. This could still mean that I'm stupid and incompet…

I recently had an interview with a company that involved 6 people interviewing me serially. That sort of thing is grueling in the best of cases. But this one went south with the third interviewer. He seemed to me be someone with something like Aspergers syndrome. He talked in a monotone, fidgeted constantly and was rocking back and forth. While I have no problem working with anyone technically competent, this person…

Have you considered that maybe him telling you that you were wrong was a ruse to see how you handled disagreements? I use this technique sometimes myself.

Re: The real reason you can't hire developers....

#166

Post by billpatrianakos »

I agree and disagree.

I agree that we don't check emails. Im guilty of that myself. Very guilty. No contest guilty. But then again I think a lot of companies are looking to hire but end up getting recommendations from people they trust. I know I'll hire a person that was recommended by a friend over someone who sends me a resume using the contact form or other official means of applying. It isn't always right but when you run a company there are so many things to juggle that we often do without a lot of times and neglect the "jobs@" inbox even though we could use a hand.

On the other hand I'd say that maybe you overestimate your qualifications. It's usually the people who think they're the greatest that are the worst. I don't know you personally but it could be the case.

So all in all, I think you're right that we may not be checking the applicant inbox as often as we should. But I also think that just because you think you should have been considered as competent as you claim to be it just doesn't make it so.

Re: The real reason you can't hire developers....

#167

Post by earl »

tptacek wrote: post #147
pg wrote: post #124

Ability to relocate: Open to idea, can't right away That's why few were interested.

I don't buy it. His explanation is more plausible. We're on-site only in Chicago, NYC, and SFBA, and have to confirm with every candidate that they're willing to work in one of those locations. "Open to relocation" is a sequence of words that gets you past that step in our hiring process. Lots of people can't honestly promise relocation without knowing what the offer is going to be. No, I think it's a lot more likely…

I took a job at Scribd at least in part because their lead recruiter, Jack, was the only one of six recruiters / companies to whom I spoke who could be bothered to read my individualized cover letter before speaking to me on the phone. I put in 2-3 hours of research per company before applying, and my cover letters were written for the firm and position. Most people couldn't be arsed to read 3-5 paragraphs.

Re: The real reason you can't hire developers....

#168

Post by mahyarm »

Leon wrote: post #120
bengl3rt wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, $115k for a senior engineer? Really great "entry level" (i.e. recently graduated but mostly self taught with lots of internships under belt) is going for $110k... most of the "seniors" I know are running $200k plus.

Ah wow, I've never made that much. I keep hearing of developers I've worked with going to new companies and making double what I am now. It always astounds how people say what they're being paid, and how I am just no where near it.

The Bay Area is competing with states with no income tax and lower rent (washington, texas, etc). A $90k wage in Seattle, WA can be equivalent to a +$110k wage in San Jose, CA after state income tax, higher rent and more expensive gas.

Re: The real reason you can't hire developers....

#169

Post by jeckel »

city41 wrote: post #43
loup-vaillant wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I expect to get paid $115K to lead a team as a senior developer, but don't want to relocate in order to be with the team. He targeted companies that claim to accommodate telecommuting. Not hire when being asked looks sneaky.

How often does telecommuting really jive with a senior/leadership position? If you're just coding away then sure I can see telecommuting being very viable. If part of your job is earning the respect of a team and being able to drive them and steer them in a direction, then not being physically there could very well be a huge barrier. Not to mention only really wanting telecommuting does potentially imply less commitm…

I'm telecommuting for a very large corporation as a senior developer for over 6 months now. I've had great success in driving the team into a direction which I feel is best for specific projects and the team as a whole.

I think the telecommute aspect is really a non-issue for some people. Companies would be wise to consider it for the low overhead.

Re: The real reason you can't hire developers....

#170

Post by tomjen3 »

JabavuAdams wrote: post #123
cunac wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you think that salary has to be lower for telecommuting position ? Premise is it will be same quality of work as on site so should be same and company saves on office, space equipment etc..

Cost of living. $70k in one city is the same as $100k in another.

Sorry, but cost of living makes no sense unless the company derives some benefit from being in a more expensive place (the company I work for does).

People with larger houses don't get a higher salary, do they

Post reply on HN