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

P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

davidlynch.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 73 posts

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#11

Post by thomaspaine »

jrockway wrote: post #5

That seems like a lot of work. The last thing I want to do when applying for a job is open up some random code and hack it. I have many other things I'd rather do, like sleeping or working on some code I care about. Google doesn't do it, Amazon doesn't do it, so if that's who you're competing against for developers, why would you do it?

I've never actually applied for a job at Google, but going to 7 interviews (or however many it is now) seems like a lot more work than what they're asking for. I'd rather spend 30 minutes writing code than 7 hours on interviews, and either way you're going to have to answer technical questions at some point in the process.

Also, if you can't be bothered to spend 30 minutes proving that you can code, how much do you really want to work there? The only time I've done one of these challenges was for a company that I was really excited about working for.

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#12

Post by latch »

cletus wrote: post #8

You have two steps round the wrong way: 1. Do the phone screen first. Frankly, in my experience, you can filter out a lot of people in the first minute; and 2. Then do the test. Speaking of the test, I had a quick look and it takes time. How much time? I'm not sure as I didn't look at the starting code, just the list of tasks. Maybe it only takes 30 minutes. Maybe it might take hours. I really don't know. Either way,…

I agree re the test. I'm sure it would have been different if I was interested in the job, but I didn't even finish reading what they wanted me to do before I said "screw this".

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#13

Post by gensym »

shoota wrote: post #9
jrockway wrote: post #5

That seems like a lot of work. The last thing I want to do when applying for a job is open up some random code and hack it. I have many other things I'd rather do, like sleeping or working on some code I care about. Google doesn't do it, Amazon doesn't do it, so if that's who you're competing against for developers, why would you do it?

Actually, Amazon will sometimes give out "homework" assignments after the initial phone interview usually comprising of 2-6 hours of work.

Fair enough. The difference between giving out homework after giving a potential candidate a change to talk with future coworkers than doing it before is huge. Companies that bitch about how hard it is to find skilled programmers shouldn't be making it harder for skilled programmers find out why they should be interested in working for said companies.

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#14

Post by earl »

shoota wrote: post #9
jrockway wrote: post #5

That seems like a lot of work. The last thing I want to do when applying for a job is open up some random code and hack it. I have many other things I'd rather do, like sleeping or working on some code I care about. Google doesn't do it, Amazon doesn't do it, so if that's who you're competing against for developers, why would you do it?

Actually, Amazon will sometimes give out "homework" assignments after the initial phone interview usually comprising of 2-6 hours of work.

That's fair, but that's after the initial phone screen. I'm with jrockway: if you want me to complete a coding exercise before both (1) the initial phone screen with an internal recruiter and (2) a technical phone screen, then I just stop responding to emails. Companies get zero work before they give me a reason to be interested, and I am absolutely not going to take a test just to try to talk someone into looking at my resume. You have to sell me before I donate hours of my time. And I don't think I'm the only candidate that feels this way...

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#15

Post by latch »

yesimahuman wrote: post #10

I understand the benefit of a "trial period" for the hiring company, but for prospective hires this sounds terrible. Is this common?

yes, it's common...though I agree with the OP that in most places it's very..easy going. It's particularly useful in places which don't have at-will employment (read, most places) so that you can fire someone who really doesn't work out without having the burden that's normally associated with firing someone.

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#17

Post by latch »

justin_vanw wrote: post #3

P(I'm impressed) ~= Nope Turning down a lot of candidates is not the same as finding good candidates. If you are turning down that many applicants, all it means is that your applicant pool is almost entirely bad candidates. That merely implies you are failing where it matters most, getting awesome candidates interested and excited about working for you. I bet you could drive the P down even more. You could write wors…

Interviewing process is something which, to my astonishment, companies don't tweak or experiment with. They have a process and they stick with it...this is as true of large corporations as it is of small startups. There's no attempt at being better or trying something different, even though everyone acknowledges how difficult and important it is.

Part of the problem is people don't realize that they are doing it poorly.

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#19

Post by latch »

JoeCortopassi wrote: post #6
kemayo wrote: post #2

I wanted to submit this, because in the recent hiring thread [1] I got some responses complaining that we'd been posting for ages now, without apparently hiring anyone. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3060406

Just tossing this out there, cause I was one of the people making those comments. I don't think anyone is frustrated with not getting hired, I think it's just weird seeing the same monthly "We really want to hire people" post, but zero response to (what seems like)a lot of people that apply. I feel like this is indicative of one of three scenarios: 1) For whatever reason, there is a high turn over rate at your compan…

It's mind boggling that your parent, your OP, missed that people were mainly disappointed with the lack of feedback. It's also disappointing that, despite a number of signs, they don't even consider that they/their process might be the problem. There's a disconnect.

Re: P(we hire you) =~ 0.0016

#20

Post by kabdib »

My thoughts:

1. Another programming problem. Okay, if it doesn't take too long, I'd do it.

2. 60 day fuse. No way. I've worked under a Sword-of-Damoclese clause before, and I won't do it again. This is a deal-breaker, and it's probably sending a very bad message to a large group of good engineers, and you're missing out.

Fire for cause, or whatever, if you have to. But I won't work in an environment like that, and (I guess you'll just have to take it on faith) it's your loss, not mine.

Post reply on HN