You know ... if the employer doesn't want a candidate like that, then he's fair game for poaching for your personal network.
He got 1%, we can't hire him
291–300 of 594 posts
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, you did say: > There is absolutely zero reason why HR/recruiting people should have final say on a candidate. None. Now you're saying: > Well there are obviously certain areas where they should have final say
Fair, if pedantic, criticism.
If you are hyperbolic, then you can expect pedantry in return.
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#293I love companies like this! With tests and bureaucracy they are able to give me a clear signal that I shouldn't work for them, as my work will be mired in paperwork, false metrics and needless hoops to jump through.
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that HR can screen out some otherwise qualified people. I've seen that from both sides. But I think that if the criteria you provide to HR are sufficiently broad and high-level, they can be helpful. If the candidate clearly has no relevant (as defined by the hiring team/manager) education or experience, HR doesn't need to send that one down.
I think the worry would be that HR will miss a lot of people with relevant experience. "Oh, John Smith only has experience in C#, but we need someone with experience in .Net".
A partial solution to that is a better briefing and education for the HR team. Another partial solution is to make the selection criteria broader. Make clear that they should include the candidate when in doubt. But if for example you're looking for a team lead for an important project, you can certainly specify requirements that the HR team can handle, such as "must have 5 years of work experience. Must have team lead experience." etc.
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#295I love this. I not only illustrates the concept of the false negative (which is presumably as likely as the false positive)- it also showcases that disciplines and best practices, even policies hr, finance, sales ops and yes, even product are not absolute. every case is unique and can be quantum- not binary right or wrong, but every infinity in between
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#296I had kind of the opposite happen at my last 9-5 job. They were considering using this type of test for potential candidates. The managers got together and came up with the metrics they felt would make the best team members. To get a baseline they gave the test to all current employees in the department. The test was a combination personality and IQ test. The test was determined to be a failure and wasn't used, one of the primary reasons was I scored highest/closest to the benchmarks that the managers had set forth before we took the tests. I quit that job and am a lot happier.
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really depends on your definition of crap. London dev salaries range from £24k for absolute juniors to £120k+ for the top 2%. Contractors fare substantially better. In my recruiter days I placed a Python developer who had experience with a particular trading system on a contract with a large trading firm. His contract was £1,100 per day for 6 months. Keep in mind the other notable differences between here and the…
And a much higher cost of living...in London its insane.
How much you pay in London really depends on how/where you want to live. It's far cheaper if you're happy to spend an hour or more commuting each way.
I need to earn £50k to cover just childcare costs and the mortgage (looking forward to both of those going down soon). I could sell up and buy a similar property 5 miles away and those costs would both halve. I could sell up and buy a similar property 10 miles away and have no mortgage at all. Neither of those would make us happier as a family (no matter how much I'd love to have no mortgage); we want to live where we're living now, so I just get on with it.
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#298Oh god, I am shocked and horrified to hear that these sorts of tests may now be making their way into the tech industry. I've never encountered one of these personally, but my then-girlfriend who was a recent nursing school graduate looking for her first job ran into them and failed the first few of them. After reading about them online I'm convinced the only way for you to "pass" these tests is to be slightly psycho…
I don't think they're "making their way", I think they're already here in some tech segments. I've only been subjected to a test such as this once, administered by a certain mega-grocery-wholesaler in southern New Hampshire, and I thought it was hilarious. My answers reflected my "take charge, get sh*t done, &etc" startup mentality. They clearly wanted corporate drones who would quietly go about their assigned duties and submit to whatever authoritarianism was in the air at that location. I hope I bent the needle on their personality-o-meter as I sure tried to.
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#299Not to be nitpicky, but rather to help: You are using 'me' and 'I' backwards. It's really distracting and made it difficult to get through the beginning of the post to the actual story.
The rules are simple: Take Carl out of the sentence. Would you say "Me made myself available"? No. Then why "Carl and me made ourselves available"?
Would you say "score extra points with I"? No. Then why "score extra points with Carl and I"?
If you are in the subject of the sentence, then use I: "Carl and I went to the movies."
If you are in the predicate, or are the object of an action, use me: "The students handed their completed tests to Carl and me."
Re: He got 1%, we can't hire him
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair, if pedantic, criticism.
If you are hyperbolic, then you can expect pedantry in return.
If every hyperbole was met with pedantry then nobody would ever go fishing again, and HN would turn into the worst newsgroup you can remember from the 90s.