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

A Limited Interest Article on Employer Value Prop and Hiring

residentcontrarian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 30 posts

Re: A Limited Interest Article on Employer Value Prop and Hiring

#11

Post by rendall »

darth_avocado wrote: post #9
gopalv wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yet there are companies out there rejecting me for job descriptions which are only 50% of my skill set because I couldn’t code this obscure hard algorithms problem in 45 mins This is usually an odd thing that happens when you accidentally interview yourself a level below - there's a definite "I made a trade-off to do something else" that you hit at the boundary of senior+ engineer. I interviewed at a FAANG recently…

Right but I’m not talking about rejections when you’ve had extended conversations, I’m talking about phone screens, which often have nothing to do with the actual job.

> Yet there are companies out there rejecting me... because I couldn’t code this obscure hard algorithms problem in 45 mins.

> I’m talking about phone screens

You have phone screens asking you to solve algorithm problems?

> I work for a faang, I’ve worked at all kinds of “prestigious” companies, I have worked at all kinds of companies, I get paid more than most people will ever do in their lifetime, and most importantly I know my stuff.

In the spirit of helpfulness, to be honest, I found this off-putting. If you say such things during interviews you may unintentionally raise red flags. The hard algorithms might be a contrived reason to reject you.

Re: A Limited Interest Article on Employer Value Prop and Hiring

#12

Post by drewcoo »

> The man who figures out the false negative problem will rule the world

Oh, give it a rest.

Nobody understands how to hire, but everyone thinks they have special insight into the problem that nobody else does. And they're either trying to hoard their knowledge or boast about it and sell the rest of us something.

It reminds me of gamblers and their magical strategies. They're obviously BS, but we're all temporarily embarrassed gazillionaires, so we are interested in hearing more. Just in case.

Re: A Limited Interest Article on Employer Value Prop and Hiring

#15

Post by ar_turnbull »

gopalv wrote: post #7
darth_avocado wrote: post #5

False negative problem is so ridiculous. I work for a faang, I’ve worked at all kinds of “prestigious” companies, I have worked at all kinds of companies, I get paid more than most people will ever do in their lifetime, and most importantly I know my stuff. Yet there are companies out there rejecting me for job descriptions which are only 50% of my skill set because I couldn’t code this obscure hard algorithms proble…

> Yet there are companies out there rejecting me for job descriptions which are only 50% of my skill set because I couldn’t code this obscure hard algorithms problem in 45 mins This is usually an odd thing that happens when you accidentally interview yourself a level below - there's a definite "I made a trade-off to do something else" that you hit at the boundary of senior+ engineer. I interviewed at a FAANG recently…

I had a similar experience with a large tech co. Applied to a Staff role and on a single, open-ended question they decided I was more of a Director whereas they were currently looking for an IC.

This company gives interview feedback so it was clear to me where I went wrong and how taking my answer in a direction that highlighted craft instead of leadership would have gotten me the role.

I’m still a bit baffled given the number of rounds, the rapport with at least three of the four interviewers, and the likelihood that I simply finished second place (we can’t all come in first) BUT they told me I can’t apply again for six months — even if it’s a management role instead of an IC role I’m blacklisted.

Apparently rather than this being a case of “right candidate, wrong role” or “sorry but not this time” I need to go better myself and “growth takes time“.

Sure I can look at as a bullet dodged, but frankly I really wanted it and if they were to miraculously offer me something tomorrow I’d take it.

I just don’t see how this policy is good for the company — other than keeping a few crazies at bay, the false negative cost must be extra high for them. If anyone has any insight into this line of thinking, I’d be super curious to hear it.

Re: A Limited Interest Article on Employer Value Prop and Hiring

#16

Post by darth_avocado »

rendall wrote: post #11
darth_avocado wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right but I’m not talking about rejections when you’ve had extended conversations, I’m talking about phone screens, which often have nothing to do with the actual job.

> Yet there are companies out there rejecting me... because I couldn’t code this obscure hard algorithms problem in 45 mins. > I’m talking about phone screens You have phone screens asking you to solve algorithm problems? > I work for a faang, I’ve worked at all kinds of “prestigious” companies, I have worked at all kinds of companies, I get paid more than most people will ever do in their lifetime, and most importan…

Err I didn’t say that during the interviews. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with interview processes for engineering roles in tech companies, but you absolutely do not even talk about your experience in most rounds, let alone the things you think I said.

Mostly it goes like this: 5 mins join the interview and the logistics setup, 5 mins the interviewer and the interviewee give a brief introduction, just polite small talk, 45 mins algorithm exercise, 5 mins at the end for the interviewer to answer any questions the candidates might have.

There is No opportunity as a candidate to talk about themselves. Maybe if you make it to the on-site and get to talk to the HM. But again, no one talks like you think I did.

Re: A Limited Interest Article on Employer Value Prop and Hiring

#17

Post by mlhpdx »

> Despite the abundance of companies that have trouble hiring good people, there just aren’t that many who care about it enough to respect the people they are trying to hire and give them a full picture of who they are and what they want to do.

Having been an engineering leader in growing companies that didn’t (don’t) have a problem hiring enough good people, I’m a little sad the “secret” is out. Indeed, having genuine respect for people is magic.

Re: A Limited Interest Article on Employer Value Prop and Hiring

#18

Post by sokoloff »

ar_turnbull wrote: post #15
gopalv wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yet there are companies out there rejecting me for job descriptions which are only 50% of my skill set because I couldn’t code this obscure hard algorithms problem in 45 mins This is usually an odd thing that happens when you accidentally interview yourself a level below - there's a definite "I made a trade-off to do something else" that you hit at the boundary of senior+ engineer. I interviewed at a FAANG recently…

I had a similar experience with a large tech co. Applied to a Staff role and on a single, open-ended question they decided I was more of a Director whereas they were currently looking for an IC. This company gives interview feedback so it was clear to me where I went wrong and how taking my answer in a direction that highlighted craft instead of leadership would have gotten me the role. I’m still a bit baffled given…

If it’s a company that gets a ton of qualified applicants, it could just be managing applicant flow. You obviously passed the first few screens, the interviewers scored you as “eligible to re-apply”, and just do that in 6 months.

Some companies get so much inbound flow that they can choose between interviewing X again or interviewing X+5000 for a new role. They choose to ensure they look at some fresh candidates by pausing some candidates for a few months.

Re: A Limited Interest Article on Employer Value Prop and Hiring

#19

Post by cj »

darth_avocado wrote: post #16
rendall wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yet there are companies out there rejecting me... because I couldn’t code this obscure hard algorithms problem in 45 mins. > I’m talking about phone screens You have phone screens asking you to solve algorithm problems? > I work for a faang, I’ve worked at all kinds of “prestigious” companies, I have worked at all kinds of companies, I get paid more than most people will ever do in their lifetime, and most importan…

Err I didn’t say that during the interviews. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with interview processes for engineering roles in tech companies, but you absolutely do not even talk about your experience in most rounds, let alone the things you think I said. Mostly it goes like this: 5 mins join the interview and the logistics setup, 5 mins the interviewer and the interviewee give a brief introduction, just polite small…

> I’m not sure if you’re familiar with interview processes for engineering roles in tech companies

I’m not the person your replying to. But…

I’ve hired dozens of engineers and manage the hiring at a tech company. Your description of the interview process is no where near the process I take when hiring engineers, and also isn’t what I hear candidates tell me about processes they’ve been through with other companies.

Re: A Limited Interest Article on Employer Value Prop and Hiring

#20

Post by RobRivera »

cj wrote: post #19
darth_avocado wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Err I didn’t say that during the interviews. I’m not sure if you’re familiar with interview processes for engineering roles in tech companies, but you absolutely do not even talk about your experience in most rounds, let alone the things you think I said. Mostly it goes like this: 5 mins join the interview and the logistics setup, 5 mins the interviewer and the interviewee give a brief introduction, just polite small…

> I’m not sure if you’re familiar with interview processes for engineering roles in tech companies I’m not the person your replying to. But… I’ve hired dozens of engineers and manage the hiring at a tech company. Your description of the interview process is no where near the process I take when hiring engineers, and also isn’t what I hear candidates tell me about processes they’ve been through with other companies.

ive interviewed dozens of times at faangs, their description is similar to my experience.
Post reply on HN