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

Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

blog.alinelerner.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 93 posts

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#61

Post by mmatants »

vonmoltke wrote: post #8
iamthepieman wrote: post #3

I don't understand the author's problem with "look good on paper" This is paper that the applicant has full control over. The applicant can put whatever they want on their resume and cover letter. Sure this is a writing challenge that doesn't correlate directly with engineering ability but being able to communicate the value of your ideas and explain technical ideas and methods to people with different backgrounds an…

> I don't understand the author's problem with "look good on paper" This is paper that the applicant has full control over. The applicant can put whatever they want on their resume and cover letter. Yes, up to and including blatant lies. If your company establishes a reputation of screening resumes based on certain features like university you encourage less moral applicants to fluff up their resumes. While these peo…

> competent but humble

This is the issue that I have with job postings demanding "kickass developers/designers/etc".

I am good at what I do, but I would never use terms "kickass ninja" or "top shelf hacker" to describe myself, on principle. My work is not antagonistic and not competitive against other programmers or anyone else, so no "kicking ass" for me, and "top shelf" in this young industry just sounds silly, since there are new tools and patterns to learn every day.

It's weird that we're trying to attract good people as if it's still year 2000 and everyone will work for Mountain Dew and skateboard stickers.

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#62

Post by rustynails »

MCRed wrote: post #48

Here's what I've learned from 20+ years of hiring people: 1. Make all the resumes that come in responding to technical jobs go straight to your inbox. If your company has a candidate tracking system then set up an alias that sends it to you and to the tracking system. 2. Review every resume yourself. Jump in and ask follow up questions for candidates that are interesting. 3. Interview them yourself. Every one you bri…

That all rings of truth. HR overstate their abilities and interfere far too much. Over the years I've been told "if you hire, it's your risk", which turns into "I'm glad we picked Sam". Also, if you're a woman, don't make a big deal about it. Saying "I'm a woman ..." Anything will almost certainly get you shown the door - this is a red light for "attitude". There are many indicators I see, people who talk about being manages during a technical interview, etc. all bad signs. One: you'd be surprised how many women have been programmed with ad attitudes/entitlement. Makes me sad.

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#63

Post by majormajor »

tsotha wrote: post #59
majormajor wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At what point does people griping about poor compensation at startups stop being the fault of "greedy engineers" and start being the fault of investors/founders not being willing to allocate the right amount of money to labor? Software startups would still be super cheap, relative to most other things. Based on the recruiting contacts I get, there are some startups with massive amounts of cash in the bank that are st…

What's the point of griping about compensation at startups? If you don't like the job offer, don't take it. Work at a big company instead. If you have a more remunerative job offer from a big grey company and you still take the startup job they're pricing their offer correctly . Hell, they might be offering too much.

I think you misunderstood. I haven't taken the offers. Were I to feel underpaid at a startup, I'd talk to my boss and/or some recruiters, not to HN.

(Nor do you have to got to a huge corporation to find the larger offers.)

It's just something to keep in mind when you see "why can't I hire enough good engineers?" posts... not the only reason, by any means, but certainly a reason.

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#64

Post by 7Figures2Commas »

majormajor wrote: post #54
7Figures2Commas wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Instead, engineers who are willing to jump are generally able to attain much higher compensation than those who stay put - so we're incentivized to do so, rather than investing ourselves in a company and having the company invest in us. Notwithstanding the fact there are companies that under-invest in their employees, you make it sound like engineers are being forced to try to maximize compensation. The reality is…

At what point does people griping about poor compensation at startups stop being the fault of "greedy engineers" and start being the fault of investors/founders not being willing to allocate the right amount of money to labor? Software startups would still be super cheap, relative to most other things. Based on the recruiting contacts I get, there are some startups with massive amounts of cash in the bank that are st…

> At what point does people griping about poor compensation at startups...

While there absolutely are startups offering unreasonably low wages, there are also a good number of startups where relatively young engineers with just a few years of professional experience are being paid well into the six figures annually.

A lot of the complaints about "poor compensation" are misguided and based on unrealistic salary comparisons. Just because Company A has salaries 50% higher than Company B doesn't necessarily mean that Company B is offering "poor compensation."

> Based on the recruiting contacts I get, there are some startups with massive amounts of cash in the bank that are still stingy on the salaries but will go on and on about equity even when they've raised several rounds at ever-higher valuations.

So you'd prefer to go to work for a company that isn't increasing its valuation?

If you think that a company's valuation is far too rich, by all means discount the equity you're offered. But also consider that your ability to predict a company's future value might not be very good. How many people claimed companies like Facebook and Twitter were already overvalued years before they went public? I'll readily admit that I'm guilty of this.

> But, fortunately, there are also others that are starting to be willing to pay more cash at earlier stages. I'm far from convinced that this is a bad thing.

That's great, but be mindful of how this affects runway. Such startups, if they don't hit the milestones required to get to the next round of funding, may not be able to continue paying you for very long.

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#65

Post by dynamicdispatch »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #51
cp9 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Maybe hire people with at least some demonstrated aptitude and invest in them instead how do you demonstrate this?

Give them a small project to do, something that should take about 3-5 days.

Ugh, this is acceptable, I guess, provided the company is willing to pay an hourly wage. I'm currently in the process of looking for a new gig, and there's nothing worse than being sent a coding challenge that should take about '2 hours' (4-5, more like), and then to get a canned rejection from the recruiter stating the code didn't pass muster. This is especially annoying with companies with DEEP pockets - at least do me the courtesy of paying an hourly wage OR have an engineer on the team go over the code and give some feedback.

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#66

Post by smil »

drblast wrote: post #6

I think it's time that we consider that the problem might not be that we're hiring people based on the wrong things, but that the simple indicators of future success just might not exist. How long does this have to be an unsolved problem before people start to think, hey, maybe future success just isn't predictable, and certainly not if all you have is a resume and a couple hour interview. Maybe hire people with at l…

Indeed, all the "scientific" hiring processes are hinged on the idea that it is possible to accurately predict an individuals future performance.

A child knows that predicting the future is impossible.

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#67

Post by EliRivers »

smil wrote: post #66
drblast wrote: post #6

I think it's time that we consider that the problem might not be that we're hiring people based on the wrong things, but that the simple indicators of future success just might not exist. How long does this have to be an unsolved problem before people start to think, hey, maybe future success just isn't predictable, and certainly not if all you have is a resume and a couple hour interview. Maybe hire people with at l…

Indeed, all the "scientific" hiring processes are hinged on the idea that it is possible to accurately predict an individuals future performance. A child knows that predicting the future is impossible.

Yet if someone throws me a ball, I can catch it.

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#68

Post by nosefrog »

rustynails wrote: post #62
MCRed wrote: post #48

Here's what I've learned from 20+ years of hiring people: 1. Make all the resumes that come in responding to technical jobs go straight to your inbox. If your company has a candidate tracking system then set up an alias that sends it to you and to the tracking system. 2. Review every resume yourself. Jump in and ask follow up questions for candidates that are interesting. 3. Interview them yourself. Every one you bri…

That all rings of truth. HR overstate their abilities and interfere far too much. Over the years I've been told "if you hire, it's your risk", which turns into "I'm glad we picked Sam". Also, if you're a woman, don't make a big deal about it. Saying "I'm a woman ..." Anything will almost certainly get you shown the door - this is a red light for "attitude". There are many indicators I see, people who talk about being…

> One: you'd be surprised how many women have been programmed with ad attitudes/entitlement.

I don't understand what you mean here, and this comes off as offensive.

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#69

Post by lstrope »

drblast wrote: post #6

I think it's time that we consider that the problem might not be that we're hiring people based on the wrong things, but that the simple indicators of future success just might not exist. How long does this have to be an unsolved problem before people start to think, hey, maybe future success just isn't predictable, and certainly not if all you have is a resume and a couple hour interview. Maybe hire people with at l…

I don't have much value to add... but I have felt this since I arrived in SV 5 years ago.

It has only gotten worse.

I don't have a degree from a prestigious school. I do have a bachelors in Computer Information Systems though. What this means is I have hands on practical experience in what to do and how to do it - but I don't have the deep theory tutelage that everyone in SV seems to require.

Unfortunately I was duped in to thinking you build a career and build ontop of what you have done. In SV - nobody even bothers to look at my resume.

I've never been asked about my experience. I've only been shown a whiteboard and told to jump through hoops.

It is B.S. because the white-boarding ability has no bearing on how good of a colleague you are. How much you contribute, and whether or not you are a good engineer.

IMO all it does is validate that you went to a top tier school - and allows for the the hiring company to add 1 more million onto their valuation on exit.

Case and point: a few years ago I interviewed at a company that wanted to build a Learning Management System focused on re-educating senior-citizens. I had 4 years of relevant experience in that industry, which included working for the top two companies in that verical. I happened to be a Rails engineer which they wanted to leverage. It seemed like a perfect fit and they were on the cusp of giving me an offer - but they passed me up to hire someone from MIT that had never worked for a company and had never touched ruby. His MIT degree was more valuable to them.

If merrit was a thing in silicon valley - that would not have happened.

Re: Silicon Valley hiring is not a meritocracy (2013)

#70

Post by Jweb_Guru »

rustynails wrote: post #62
MCRed wrote: post #48

Here's what I've learned from 20+ years of hiring people: 1. Make all the resumes that come in responding to technical jobs go straight to your inbox. If your company has a candidate tracking system then set up an alias that sends it to you and to the tracking system. 2. Review every resume yourself. Jump in and ask follow up questions for candidates that are interesting. 3. Interview them yourself. Every one you bri…

That all rings of truth. HR overstate their abilities and interfere far too much. Over the years I've been told "if you hire, it's your risk", which turns into "I'm glad we picked Sam". Also, if you're a woman, don't make a big deal about it. Saying "I'm a woman ..." Anything will almost certainly get you shown the door - this is a red light for "attitude". There are many indicators I see, people who talk about being…

"Attitude" is acknowledging that you are a woman? Wow. I sincerely hope I never work at your company.
Post reply on HN