Resumes suck for hiring engineers
blog.alinelerner.com
Resumes suck for hiring engineers
1–10 of 172 posts
Re: Resumes suck for hiring engineers
#2I would think that the other interpretation of this result is just that many engineers suck at writing resumes, which is totally plausible. In fact, one could analyze this in the current data set by looking at the total number of correct predictions versus the different resumes in the set. A well-written resume would then be one which results in correct predictions most frequently. You'd then have two dimensions for each resume - quality as judged by the author and signaling accuracy in the resume itself.
I've seen resumes in all corners of that plot, so I can't say that I'd throw out the resume straight away, but it does indicate that there is some large gap between what hirers want and what candidates think they want.
Re: Resumes suck for hiring engineers
#3I would think that the other interpretation of this result is just that many engineers suck at writing resumes, which is totally plausible. In fact, one could analyze this in the current data set by looking at the total number of correct predictions versus the different resumes in the set. A well-written resume would then be one which results in correct predictions most frequently. You'd then have two dimensions for…
What is the interpretation to which you are proposing an alternative?
Re: Resumes suck for hiring engineers
#4I would think that the other interpretation of this result is just that many engineers suck at writing resumes, which is totally plausible. In fact, one could analyze this in the current data set by looking at the total number of correct predictions versus the different resumes in the set. A well-written resume would then be one which results in correct predictions most frequently. You'd then have two dimensions for…
What is the interpretation to which you are proposing an alternative?
That resumes are an objectively bad communication/evaluation tool.
Re: Resumes suck for hiring engineers
#5>I make pretty websites for the internet.
>I'm a real engineer guys!
Re: Resumes suck for hiring engineers
#6I feel like this data is a small piece of the age long debate about hiring methods and competence/success indicators.
There's been a lot of data about how even people who think they are experts at finding good candidates are really no better than someone flipping a coin.
How then, if the line between "strong/less strong" candidates are so blurred, does Aline draw the line between "strong/less strong" herself? Isn't the way she splits the candidates' resumes also part of the exact thing she's trying to measure?
> "...then even if my criteria for whether each resume belonged to a strong candidate wasn’t perfect, the results would still be compelling"
Re: Resumes suck for hiring engineers
#7It's hard to gauge a person's qualities from a resume. Things like culture fit (extremely important IMO), fast thinker, quick learner - are all aspects that can't be garnered from a resume. IMO, resumes are only a decent filter for experience, and provides a baseline for the interview.
There are many I've interviewed that padded their resumes and said they are experienced in something they really aren't, and there are some who dont have much experience but are smart and quick learners.
Without a resume, what else can we go with when it comes to hiring? In my career, the best hires have always been from two sources:
- someone i've worked with and trust before
- someone who was recommended by someone i worked with and trust before
Re: Resumes suck for hiring engineers
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the interpretation to which you are proposing an alternative?
That resumes are an objectively bad communication/evaluation tool.
I think that's a stronger statement than is intended in the article - theoretically if people wrote resumes differently they could be good, but the way they are used now, they are bad. You're providing a theory as to why they are bad now, but not really contradicting anything in the article.
Re: Resumes suck for hiring engineers
#9I feel like this data is a small piece of the age long debate about hiring methods and competence/success indicators. There's been a lot of data about how even people who think they are experts at finding good candidates are really no better than someone flipping a coin. How then, if the line between "strong/less strong" candidates are so blurred, does Aline draw the line between "strong/less strong" herself? Isn't t…
I don't think you actually demonstrate this statement:
> if the line between "strong/less strong" candidates are so blurred
It is hard to tell prospectively whether someone will be a good programmer. It is not too difficult to tell retrospectively. (Any research that tries to measure competence/success indicators must be using something as its dependent variable, right?) The line you quote is specifically about the fact that resumes could be meaningful even if her competence assignments were not. Resumes seem to fail at that test as well.
The biggest threat to validity would probably be that different people will be good/bad developers in different environments, and that this effect is very strong. Then each reviewer could be good at selecting for success in their own company, but they would only agree with each or with aline to the extent that their environment was similar to that of other companies or the ones that aline placed those engineers at. I am pretty comfortable rejecting this theory out of hand myself.
Re: Resumes suck for hiring engineers
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
That resumes are an objectively bad communication/evaluation tool.
I think that's a stronger statement than is intended in the article - theoretically if people wrote resumes differently they could be good, but the way they are used now, they are bad. You're providing a theory as to why they are bad now, but not really contradicting anything in the article.
"Resumes just aren’t that useful"
"...at the end of the day, the resume is a low-signal document."
"Longer-term, how engineers are filtered fundamentally needs to change."
The conclusion seems to be that resumes are fundamentally flawed.