The experiment looks flawed. It seems that ALL (or almost all) resumes are, at least, OK. Resumes can work for weeding out bad fits, or people doing things clearly out of the scope of interest. They are not, and cannot, be a tool for choosing the best. (Unless success is so spectacular, that you know the person by name anyway.) It's HR's delusion that previous -perceived- presented achievements written on one's resum…
But can we have technical interviews instead of brain-teasers? Maybe it is just me, but I don't do puzzles. I solve big problems, and I have a track record of being very successful at it. I juggle people, and tools, and objectives, and timelines, and get things done. I like projects, and I am not afraid of hard work. If I like the objective of a project, I will wade through human vomit to get it done. Brain teasers a…
Resumes suck for hiring engineers
111–120 of 172 posts
Re: Resumes suck for hiring engineers
#112You know what's frustrating? When you don't even make it to the interview stage because hiring managers think that "Red Hat" and "Linux" are two different things. I was recently passed over because my 15 years' of experience with Linux has been with multiple distributions (including RPM-based ones) and my resume didn't have a line that just said "Red Hat" on it. Them: "Oh, I'm sorry, we can't hire you because you don…
Its a bit pedantic but if your "hiring manager"* doesn't know Red Hat from Linux you don't want to work there.
If a recruiter or HR rep doesn't know Red Hat from Linux they need to find another field to recruit in.
(a hiring manager is usually the person a new hire directly reports to, not the person doing initial resume screening)
Re: Resumes suck for hiring engineers
#113The real questions are: What would be better than sending a resume? Should the job ask for a resume as well as have every applicant submit a project somewhere, one which will be "unit tested" automatically to filter candidates? Should they just ask for the project? Should there be something other than a resume like a timed coding test or something (where the applicant needs to take half an hour and write a program to…
A friend of mine made it through the initial interview stages at SoundCloud. He was then given three days to build an iOS app using the SoundCloud API that showed off his experience and skill. I like that approach because three days is a nice length of time to build something you can be proud of. He was interviewing for the iOS team, of course.
Was he paid for his work? If he wasn't, he's part of the problem in hiring processes in our industry.
Re: Resumes suck for hiring engineers
#114The real questions are: What would be better than sending a resume? Should the job ask for a resume as well as have every applicant submit a project somewhere, one which will be "unit tested" automatically to filter candidates? Should they just ask for the project? Should there be something other than a resume like a timed coding test or something (where the applicant needs to take half an hour and write a program to…
A friend of mine made it through the initial interview stages at SoundCloud. He was then given three days to build an iOS app using the SoundCloud API that showed off his experience and skill. I like that approach because three days is a nice length of time to build something you can be proud of. He was interviewing for the iOS team, of course.
That filters for people who have three days to spend on a coding challenge with no guarantees at all. If you're unemployed, straight out of school, or very dissatisfied at your current job (perhaps due to conflicts), you're much more likely to take such a challenge than if you have a lot of experience but a full time job and a family.
You might not mind that filter (hiring cheaper but talented young people), but it's surely a bias.
Re: Resumes suck for hiring engineers
#115I took the survey, and would have done a 20-minute phone screen with five out of the six resumes I got. All six were basically qualified for their roles.
That is vastly different from reality. When I post job ads, at least 25% of the resumes I get are completely unlike the job requirements, and another 50% superficially match but are obviously unqualified. The remaining 25% look like the resumes I saw in the survey.
When I get resumes from recruiters, I generally don't get any of the "didn't even read the ad" resumes, but I still get about 1/3 obviously unqualified candidates.
So overall, a resume filter lets me skip hundreds of useless phone screens or face-to-face interviews. I may lose a few good candidates in that process, but not many.
I'm really not sure why this author is trying to use resumes to decide whether to interview these candidates. Once you have them filtered to this level, a quick phone screen gives you much better information than a resume, and doesn't take too much time.
Re: Resumes suck for hiring engineers
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
A friend of mine made it through the initial interview stages at SoundCloud. He was then given three days to build an iOS app using the SoundCloud API that showed off his experience and skill. I like that approach because three days is a nice length of time to build something you can be proud of. He was interviewing for the iOS team, of course.
Was he paid for his work? If he wasn't, he's part of the problem in hiring processes in our industry.
Agreed, I did a coding exercise for the Nerdery once, I epended about 8 hours on it, no one even reviewed it. Total waste of time. Yes I am naming them intentionally, I felt that behavior was antagonistic and exploitative.
Re: Resumes suck for hiring engineers
#117Resumes are just a tool to decide whether or not to start a conversation. When hiring, you are not really concerned about letting a good candidate go. There will always be others. It is far more dangerous to let a poor candidate in. And poor candidates tend to be poor due to cultural and subject matter issues more than basic technical chops. I'm not making any hiring decisions at this point - just weeding a huge list…
"When hiring, you are not really concerned about letting a good candidate go. There will always be others."
... but STEM shortage! ;)
Re: Resumes suck for hiring engineers
#118The experiment looks flawed. It seems that ALL (or almost all) resumes are, at least, OK. Resumes can work for weeding out bad fits, or people doing things clearly out of the scope of interest. They are not, and cannot, be a tool for choosing the best. (Unless success is so spectacular, that you know the person by name anyway.) It's HR's delusion that previous -perceived- presented achievements written on one's resum…
I don't know if "flawed" is the right word, but I do agree that the conclusion is probably a little too absolute. Even if resumes can't distinguish between good and bad engineers among those minimally qualified to apply for jobs, they still help you avoid people who are just completely obviously not qualified and who don't understand what the job even is.
Re: Resumes suck for hiring engineers
#119Keep in mind that sending out resumes is not the only way to get a good job. Some relevant previous discussions:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8338859 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8532886
Re: Resumes suck for hiring engineers
#120Resumes are just a tool to decide whether or not to start a conversation. When hiring, you are not really concerned about letting a good candidate go. There will always be others. It is far more dangerous to let a poor candidate in. And poor candidates tend to be poor due to cultural and subject matter issues more than basic technical chops. I'm not making any hiring decisions at this point - just weeding a huge list…
[deleted]